CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as appellant is not a service recipient, service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) in case of bank charges paid by Indian Bank to Foreign Bank and reimbursed from the appellant.
Gujarat High Court held that since the order passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and no demand is outstanding against the appellant, it is unjustified to withhold the seized gold. Accordingly, directed to release the remaining gold at the earlier.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Granite Slabs is correctly classified under 21561200 and not under 68022390. Accordingly, the demand on this count is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
CESTAT Bangalore held that allegation of the department that the quantity of goods as shown in the purchase invoices were brought into the factory, processed, converted into finished goods and removed clandestinely without payment of duty are not supported with sufficient evidence are liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that the claim for deduction under section 80G of the Income Tax Act in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses cannot be denied.
Supreme Court held that proportionate increase in quota for import not entitled as Consent to Operate on enhanced production capacity was issued after fixing the total import limit
Gujarat High Court dismissed the allegation of sale of High Speed Diesel to various private industries at concessional sales tax without complying with the mandatory requisite permission from the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. The said allegations were dismissed in absence of any evidence.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
Gujarat High Court held that factum of non-use and even handing over of tenancy and later resumption of possession was never in knowledge of Corporation. Further, valuation was undisputedly changed. Accordingly, the rate which was applicable at the relevant point of time is applied by the Corporation.
