AAAR ule that the sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption is a non-taxable supply under Section 2(78) of the GST Act, 2017 and subsequently is an exempt supply under Section 2(47) ibid. Therefore, the appellant is required to reverse input tax credit (ITC) in terms of sub-section (2) of section 17 ibid read with Rule 42 of the GST Rules, 2017 for sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
The Meghalaya High Court upholds the right of the assessee to claim interest on the refund of a deposit made ‘under protest’ during an investigation, despite the absence of a specific provision in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai upholds that anti-dumping duty (ADD) cannot be levied on used and second-hand machinery imported from China. The ruling protects importers from double jeopardy in ADD imposition.
Delve into the case of Neeraj Sharma vs Commissioner of Customs where CESTAT ruled a secondary adjudication void ab initio due to pre-existing adjudication.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s ruling on a case, ITO Vs Logix Buildcon Pvt Ltd, asserting that the interest incurred towards project expenses cannot be deducted.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has ruled that construction of residential complexes for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation is not liable for service tax. The impugned order is set aside.
CESTAT held that if assessment of duty payment by supplier has been accepted without objection, it cannot be disputed at recipient’s end for availing Cenvat credit.
Uncover the critical implications of the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s landmark ruling, where a retired partner was found not liable for the excise duty dues of his former firm.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Savita Oil Technologies, allowing the refund of excess excise duty paid due to quantity discounts given to customers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Goyal & Co Construction, stating service tax demand cannot be confirmed without mentioning it in the show cause notice.
