CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant was eligible to clear rough castings to their sister concern on payment of duty on the assessable value based on comparable prices of goods cleared by them to non-related buyers. Provisions of rule 8 of CVR 2000 applicable only w.e.f. 01.12.2003 after amendment by notification no. 14/2012-CE (NT) dated 22.12.2003.
Gauhati High Court held that Petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement of GST on differential amount of price variation of steel and GST paid by the Petitioner from the electronic credit ledger has to be taken into consideration while computing the Price Variation Clause (PVC) Claims of the Petitioner.
CESTAT Mumbai allowed the refund claim filed by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporations (DICGC) by considering premium amount paid by bank as inclusive of tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that the collection of excess baggage charges would be leviable to service tax under the category of transport of passengers by air and not under transportation of cargo by air.
Bombay High Court held that different view by Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) in case of another Applicant cannot be ground for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of project-specific architectural drawings and designs with measurements did not amount to making available technical knowledge, know-how, or processes. Since ‘make available’ clause is not satisfied, services rendered to the AOP does not fall within the purview of FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA.
Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in matter rejection of licence for Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) as statutory provision which permits the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009.
Delhi High Court in prosecution proceedings against the Assistant Commissioner in the Trade & Taxes Department held that the discrepancy in the name in the suicide note is not germane to the issue in the controversy in the present petition.
CESTAT Chennai held that transaction value declared by the importer duly accepted as earlier imports cleared accepting the declared value and also value of the contemporaneous import of identical goods has not been conclusively arrived at by the lower adjudicating authority.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO rightly treated interest receivables as a loan outstanding given by assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and charging interest on the same.
