Held that the credit which is admissible as input tax credit under the CGST Act can be availed as input tax credit. The quantum of credit which relates to the items which continued to be covered under the Central Excise Act would not be admissible as input tax credit under CGST Act.
Held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) service can be said to have been violated only when the DGCA finds that the use of the aircraft is not in accordance with the permit granted and only in that event the Customs authority can demand duty in terms of undertaking
Held that in case of Trademark License Agreement an exclusive license to use the trademark is granted and hence the same is covered within the phrase transfer of right to use the goods and hence not leviable to service tax.
Held that there is no dispute that the work order was issued by the respondent but stamp duty on the same is not paid. Accordingly, arbitration clause would be non-existent in law and unenforceable till stamp duty is adjudicated and paid.
Held that allegation of collusion between the arbitrator and the opposite party cannot be decided in an application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Held that duty demand unsustainable in absence of any evidence that job work charges paid by the company to the job workers flowed back to them and in absence of any evidence that that the Company is involved in clandestine removal of goods
Held that goods can be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Act, only in favour of an owner. Provisional release of goods is not possible if the ownership of the goods in question is not proved.
HC Held that order passed under section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be challenged under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Held that section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an exception to Section 42. However, if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.
Held that in absence of proper show cause notice u/s. 73 (1) of the JGST Act and proper opportunity of hearing, issuance of the bank attachment notice contained in GST DRC-13 u/s. 79(1)(c) is untenable in law
