International Tax Ruling
Madras HC allows writ petition challenging show cause notice, issued after 17 years, seeking submissions of export obligation discharge certificate (EODC) proving completion of exports against Advance
...View More CESTAT Delhi (Larger Bench) answers a reference in favour of airlines (Air India/Assessee) by granting relief on service tax payable on computer reservation services (CRS) provided by foreign companie
...View More CESTAT Delhi quashes enhancement of value of imported unbranded motorcycle inner tubes (goods) on finding that “…department has failed to…adduce cogent reasons to establish the cha
...View More CESTAT Hyderabad quashes demand for National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) beyond normal period on finding that prior to 2011 i.e. before Hero Honda Motors decision “clearly there was sufficie
...View More CESTAT Delhi upholds confiscation order and penalty on manufacturers of Pan Masala/Gutkha/Chewing Tobacco (goods) of various popular brands on finding that assessee were not authorized to sell goods b
...View More CESTAT Delhi drops penalty u/s114A amounting to Rs 165 Crores (approx.) against the Assessee engaged in the business of gold and silver refining and minting facilities, also rejects invocation of exte
...View More CESTAT Delhi dismisses batch of appeals filed by multi-level marketing agents challenging service tax on the commission received under the category of Business Auxiliary-Services (BAS); Noting droppin
...View More CESTAT Delhi sets aside customs duty demand of Rs. 69.13 lakh along with interest and penalties, raised on alleged mis-declaration of imported ‘RBD Palmolein’ as ‘RBD Palmolein mixtu
...View More CESTAT Kolkata quashes order of CENVAT Credit denial of around Rs. 81.66 lakh along with penalties, holding that Revenue failed to establish non-receipt of goods or suppression of facts; Notes that pr
...View More CESTAT Delhi holds that “no excise duty would be leviable on the packing/re-packing of the parts of the two construction equipments prior to 29.04.2010. However, w.e.f. 29.04.2010, the appellant
...View More
 (1).PNG)
