.In the reason for delay in filing the appeal the appellant has stated that Advocate was busy in filing the GST returns and forgot to file the said appeal.
Bombay Market Art Silk Co Op (Shops & Warehouse) Society Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that construction and works contract if used for repair and renovation of existing factory, the same falls under inclusion clause of definition of Input Service, accordingly, the Cenvat credit is admissible. FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT […]
In view of the apparent damage to the petitioning assessee’s manufacturing facility, a moratorium for a period of two months is granted. That is to say that the payment that was due in April, 2022 will not be deemed to have been defaulted and the payment due in May, 2022 need not be paid by the 15th day of this month.
Appellant have sold /disposed of the cylinder without scrapping it which is mandatory as per the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004. For contravention of provisions, the appellant was rightly imposed penalty under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling: Even without provisional assessment, if duty was overpaid, a refund claim within a year is admissible. Case analysis and judgments.
ITAT held that loss from trading in commodity derivatives is not a speculative loss and rightly been set off by the assessee against regular business profits from medical derivatives business.
ITAT imposes cost of Rs.25,000 for lackadaisical and non co-operative attitude of the assessee towards the quantum proceedings
It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked.
Assessee did not appear on the date of hearing and did not furnish any application stating any reasonable cause for not appearing on the given date nor requested any adjournment. Thus, there is a clear violation of provision of Section 131 of the Act and penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act is attracted.
Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.
