Stay updated
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in M/s Panoli Enviro Technology Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, SURAT-II held that the effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per the Sales of Goods Act and as per definition of GTA only the transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from the ambit of service tax.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in Neeraj Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [Customs Appeal No. 12056 of 2018-DB dated July 24,…
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in M/s. Jivan Jyot Motors Pvt Ltd. [Service Tax Appeal No. 13811 of 2014-DB dated July 24,…
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/S. Hotel Shreelekha Regency Limited [Service Tax Appeal No. 40073 of 2014 dated July 14, 2023]…
The CESTAT, Chandigarh, in PNC Infratech Ltd. v. Custom & Central Excise, Ludhiana [Service Tax Appeal No. 1164 of 2011…
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s. Mount Everest Breweries Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise held that the assessee had not suppressed any facts and thus, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
The CESTAT, Bangalore in M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeal) and held that the LCD Panels are classified under tariff entry 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are classified under tariff entry 9013 9010 because LCD panels could be used for purposes other than television sets and parts of LCD panels are parts of LCD panel and not part of article.
The CESTAT, Mumbai in Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax set aside the order passed by the Commissioner by observing that assessee is ‘a deemed to be a railway company’ under the provision of Indian Railways Act, 1890 and since Indian railways was exempt from payment of service tax no service tax liable on the assessee.
The CESTAT, Kolkata in M/s Jai Balaji Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise had set aside the order demanding excise duty and held that the buyer who has paid a valuable consideration could not be proceeded upon by taking the aid of a larger period of limitation as per Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless it is proved that the buyer was also involved in fraud.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in M/s Indu Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot remanded the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that denial of cross-examination of witnesses is violative of principles of natural justice.