Stay updated
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/s. Asus India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs held that, gaming laptops are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8471 as “Automatic data processing machines” even though it is being marketed as a gaming computer that is capable of running high end graphic intensive games.
The Hon’ble Patna High Court in PCM Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India held that VAT was wrongly collected by the Indian Railways by misunderstanding the transaction as intra-state sale. The Indian Railways is liable to refund the illegal tax collected and can further claim the refund from the Bihar Value Added Tax Department.
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/s. Susee Auto Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise quashed the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and held that penalty under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 will not to be imposed in cases where duty and interest are paid voluntarily.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in C C Chokshi & Co. v. C.S.T., Service Tax, Ahmedabad held that once a notice has been issued on a particular issue the demand through fresh notice for the same period cannot be invoked.
The CESTAT, Kolkata, in M/s Satya Megha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 71484 of…
The CESTAT, Kolkata in M/s. Pratap Polysacks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia set aside the demand order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that duty cannot be demanded merely based on the difference in sales figures between the balance sheet and the and ER-1 Returns, there has to be some positive evidence brought on record to substantiate the allegation of clandestine clearance.
The CESTAT, Chennai, in M/s ABC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax set aside the demand of service tax on reimbursed amount and held that the assessee only paying advertisement charges on behalf of clients which was later reimbursed to him on actual basis thus the demand of service tax is unsustainable.
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/s. Alfred Berg & Co., (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise held that no refund of unutilized CENVAT credit after stopping manufacturing due to sale of business to another company.
The CESTAT, Chandigarh, in M/s Kumar Builders v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax set aside the demand order and held that transportation of ash to disposal area would not equate to cleaning services, it is mere transportation and disposal of ash, which falls outside the ambit of definition of cleaning services.
The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant ( KPT) provided service under the category of Port service to Essar under a contract and undervalued the services to the extent of 48.57 % of the actual standard rates notified by the appellant.