Category Filter

Category Landing Page

Showing 25190 Results

Refine search

M/S. VRP CONSTRUCTIONS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE
CESTAT Chennai, Mar 26, 2025

PER AJAYAN T. V., (JM) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned Order in Original no.27/2014 dated 16.12.2014 (OIO) of the adjudicating authority...

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST, GURUGRAM
CESTAT Chandigarh, Mar 26, 2025

P. ANJANI KUMAR, (TM): Sl. No Date of SCN Period Involved Amount Rs 1 11.11.2008 10.09.2004 to...

Legislation Referred To : Section 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

M/S PRITHVEE PROPMART PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAX, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
CESTAT Allahabad, Mar 26, 2025

P. K. CHOUDHARY, (JM): 1. The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.15/Commr./G.B. Nagar/2019-20 dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner, CGST,...

Legislation Referred To : Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

EAST WEST FREIGHT CARRIERS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL)
CESTAT Mumbai, Mar 25, 2025

since discrepancy was not a lot, therefore though penalty is upheld, forfeiture of license is set aside.

Subject : Customs brokers service
Legislation Referred To : Section 50 of Customs Act, 1962
In Favour Of : Assessee (partly)

M/S KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) NEW DELHI (ICD TKD)
CESTAT New Delhi, Mar 25, 2025

since there was no evidence to prove connection between imported and exported goods, therefore, assessee not liable for taxes and penalty imposed.

Subject : Import of goods
Legislation Referred To : Section 113(d) of Customs Act, 1962
In Favour Of : Assessee

M/S. PRO-ACTIVE SOLUTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE
CESTAT Chennai, Mar 25, 2025

since assessee reflected Bonafide intentions of not suppressing any relevant facts and important details regarding payment of taxes, therefore, no tax claim or penalty can...

Subject : Information technology services
In Favour Of : Assessee

AMRUT COLD STORAGE PVT LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, BHAVNAGAR
CESTAT Ahmedabad, Mar 25, 2025

since sanction of refund claim, vide order is not in accordance with provisions of Notification No.17/2009-ST therefore, sanction erroneous and is set aside.

Subject : Refund claim filed
In Favour Of : Revenue

RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL)
CESTAT Mumbai, Mar 25, 2025

since there was mandate for recourse to specific rules which was not done by revenue during re-evaluation therefore, re-evaluation was done without authority and liable to...

Subject : Import of goods
In Favour Of : Assessee

M/S. KANAKADHARA FLAT PROMOTERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
CESTAT Chennai, Mar 25, 2025

where on basis of facts and issues, it was clear that assessee was not engaged in any malafide intention for wrong classification of services for evading taxes, assessee...

Subject : Residential construction services
In Favour Of : Assessee

M/S. HINDUSTAN MOULDS AND DIES PVT LTD, UNIT II vs. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
CESTAT Chennai, Mar 25, 2025

based on precedent cited, it was clear that assessee did not engage in suppression of material facts to evade taxes, therefore, assessee not liable for short payment of...

Subject : Manufacturing of motor vehicle parts
Legislation Referred To : Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944
In Favour Of : Assessee