Hon’ble Court upheld the denial of export refunds on the ground that services provided by an Indian entity (to its foreign customers) through its foreign subsidiary of do not qualify as exports.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore, in the case of Naveen Chava v. Commissioner of Central Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 20013…
The CESTAT Bangalore, in the case of Mr. Rafeek K.T. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [Customs Appeal No. 20074 of…
The CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of M/s. Karnataka Golf Association v. The Commissioner of Service Tax and Another [Service…
The CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Kronos Systems India Pvt. Ltd. [Customs Appeal…
The CESTAT, Bangalore in M/s. Sun Microsystems (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU set aside the demand order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that, marketing, sales promotion, and technical pre-sales support service provided by the assessee to Indian customer on the direction of the foreign company tantamount to ‘export of service’.
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 Bangalore in M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeal No. E/562/2008 dated…
