CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty. Further, held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC.
CESTAT held that the adjustment of the tax demand from the unutilized cenvat credit lying as on June 30, 2017 can be carried forward to the GST regime by the Assessee.
Madras High Court held that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities.
CESTAT held that in a case where the assessee is a manufacturer of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods and it is impractical to maintain separate accounts of common inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods the only practical way of maintaining accounts is by corresponding credit and debit entries, reversing proportionate amount of cenvat credit.
Bombay High Court held that for an assessment to be reopened beyond a period of four years there must an omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and should not merely be the change of opinion of Assessing Officer (AO).
AAR ruled that bus operator is entitled to avail ITC on rent bill issued by service provider, who provides buses on rent charging GST at the rate of 18%, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated under Section 16 read with Section 17 of CGST Act
As per Consumer Protection Act losing a case on merit could not be termed as deficiency in service by the advocate: Supreme Court Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit and Ors. [S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 24842 of 2020, decided on November 8, 2021] held that in each and every case where […]
CESTAT held that the service of providing professional/ vocational training courses and providing certificates to the students, on the basis of which the students are getting jobs or are trained to work as an entrepreneur / self-employed, falls under the exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994.
