Held that initiation of CIRP under I&B code cannot be nullified by any order passed by SEBI nor can be a ground to reject an application.
Held that circular no. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 shall be applicable only to applications filed electronically on the common portal but would have no applicability to an application for refund which is filed manually.
Held that the license under the Act or registration under the GST Act cannot be renewed/ granted due to the fact that the subject premise is under dispute between two persons
Held that the goods have been confiscated and no redemption was allowed, the duty liability cannot pass on to anyone but to the Government of India in whom the property vests.
Held that since Cess on Paper is not a duty of excise the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply
Held that duty exemption benefit under notification no. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 cannot be denied because of a diversification of production capacity by adding new machines.
Held that Melamina is a Syantan and accordingly benefit of duty free import under DFIA licence under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 available
ITAT Chandigarh held that the aggregator/ intermediary (OLA) acts merely as an intermediary and hence not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C on payments made to drivers.
Held that while the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, the transporter has right to seek the release of conveyance alone.
Held that the proper officer cannot transform the detention proceedings into a confiscatory proceeding. Further, power of confiscation can be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.
