Gujarat High Court held that refund claim of inadvertently charged IGST @18% instead of concessional rate of 0.1% duly available as merely because by mistake, the duties are paid on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act.
Kerala High Court held that a vehicle cannot be seized by customs on an apprehension that it may be used in future as a means of transporting smuggled goods.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi judgment on Aadarsh Sri Sai Manpower Solution vs Commissioner, addressing service tax liability discharge, penalties, and key legal insights.
CESTAT Bangalore held that with effect from 01.03.2005 branded jewellery are chargeable to excise duty @2%. However, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of establishment of allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Resolution Plan submitted by Univastu India Ltd. which was approved unanimously by the members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and which meets the requirements of law deserved to be approved.
Bombay High Court held that after the recognition of the first charge of the assessee as a secured creditor, the charge of the Sales Tax Department to recover the sales tax dues would be valid.
NCLT Delhi subject to the observations, approved the Resolution Plan in respect of Arena Superstructures Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) as the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC with 71.11% of the members voting and is in accordance with the law.
Bombay High Court held that the amount of tax refunded to the Petitioner, including interest, is to be reduced while determining the amount of disputed tax under KVSS as the Petitioner had not disclosed and calculated tax properly.
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.
