Appellant had reasonably explained the licit possession of the two gold bars, as received by way of succession under the will of his father however due to unexplained source of licit acquisition by father of appellant, penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) and penalty under Section 114AA was set aside.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of […]
DCIT Vs Archean Chemical Industries Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) 13. The provisions of section 56(2)(viib) has been inserted to the statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and as per said provisions, where a company, not being a company in which public are substantially interested, receives in any previous year, from any person being a […]
Savita Oil Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue revolves around the alleged non-receipt of ‘inputs’ in excess of the tolerance margin of 0.4% at the facility of the appellant as evidenced by their own ‘goods receipt note (GRN)’ for the disputed period and the impugned order held that ‘8. The […]
Find out why delaying the adjudication of Show Cause Notices for 13 years is not just, proper, or legal. Learn more about this legal issue in our blog post.
Whether services provided are man power services or job work services so as to be exempted under the relevant notifications issued under Finance Act, 1994.
It was the submission that assessee has acquired multiple units and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim of exemption u/s. 54F
Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant then sought for refund of the service tax paid by them to the tune of Rs.11,60,968/- on the ground that no services were provided by the German company to them and that the amount having been refunded to them, they […]
Kalubhai Ranchhodbhai Dhakecha Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) A perusal of the assessment order however reveals that there is nothing mentioned in the order that the opening balance was found unsubstantiated. The assessment order only finds a mention of the fact regarding the quantum of opening cash balance 9,06,927/- which included 4,03,585/- agricultural income and 2,78,391/- […]
ITAT held that revenue should also be careful when filing the appeals against the order of the appellate authorities. Not all orders of the appellate authorities are erroneous; a little care in filing these appeals would go a long way.
