The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification dated February 16, 2015 has issued the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, thereby notifying Roadmap for applicability of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) for compliance by the class of companies specified in the said Rules. Following companies shall comply with the Ind AS for the accounting periods […]
Vibha Publications Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was engaged in job work of printing material. In the printing process, the plates, chemicals and ink (Impugned Goods) were consumed. The Revenue contended that the value of Impugned Goods consumed in printing process is exigible to Sales tax.
BRG Iron & Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (the Petitioner) is a two star export house status holder. The Additional DGFT vide letter dated May 31, 2013 informed that the Petitioner entitlement under the Advance Authorization dated May 9, 2012, was limited to a sum of Rs. 38,83,52,050/- instead of Rs. 77,03,73,810/-.
Devki Nandan J Gupta (the Appellant) filed two SAD Refund claims of Rs. 21,92,938/- and Rs. 6,05,866/- on May 6, 2013 (Refund Claim 1) and May 24, 2013 (Refund Claim 2) respectively in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007 (the Notification).
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that for no reason, the Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount of the Appellants for more than 2 years after passing of the Order. Further, the Revenue neither filed an appeal against the Order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the Appellants that the legitimate claim of the Appellants has not been granted.
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
In the instant case, Jubiliant Engineering (the Appellant) was 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of valve assemblies falling under the Chapter 8481 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Though the Appellant was not required to pay duty on the export goods
In the present case, Tata Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) filed eleven Refund claims amounting to Rs. 1,26,78,767/- during the period September 1997 to December 1999. However, the Refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
Suncity Art Exporters (the Appellant) were exporters of handicrafts and were entitled to Refund of Service tax paid on the various specified input services in terms of Notification No. 17/09-ST dated July 7, 2009.
In the instant case, Kuttukaran Trading Ventures (the Assessee) was engaged in the business of reconditioning engines and parts thereof and repairs of other parts of vehicles of all brands. The Assessee did not have any authorization from any manufacturer of vehicles/ parts for providing post-sale service to buyers.
