Appellant have reversed or paid the amount in terms of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6, therefore, as per sub Rule (3D), it will amount to not taking of Cenvat credit
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Thermax Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had procured duty paid inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed but cleared the goods, as such, on a sale value which was higher than the purchase CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provide for clearance of […]
Offence in this case is only the lapsing of e-way bill, and that too for bonafide reasons, and this offence may not be viewed very harshly. HC reduces Penalty
Piedade Carvalho Vs Maria Victoria Boavinda (Bombay High Court) In this case, the delay was of only 67 days. Further, the explanation offered was that the appellant was illiterate, knowing neither to read nor write. He was a senior citizen suffering from various ailments related to his age. He engaged an Advocate to represent him […]
Appellant has deliberately and intentionally has not provided any such information which was false or incorrect. As such, in my opinion that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has wrongly been imposed upon him.
CESTAT held that exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE is available to sub-contractor who supplied the goods to the main contractor who has been awarded contract/ work order under ICB.
Raymold Lighting Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that this appeal is against the rectification order passed by A.O and the impugned order by CIT(A) on this order of rectification u/s. 154 of the Act dated 27.09.2017. We noted that in the original appeal filed before CIT(A) by the assessee, the assessee has […]
It is evident from this that the Ld.CIT(A) has also not given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the parties. It is necessary to specify that the power of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer.
Once the maintenance charges were attributable to the letting out services provided, same derived from providing services was to be considered under the head income from other sources and not income from house property
CESTAT Delhi held that mere possession of foreign marking on gold without any corroborative evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled gold.
