CESTAT Mumbai held that provisions of rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable only when the manufacturer is engaged in both manufacture of dutiable and final product. It is not applicable in case of by-products.
Patna High Court in liquor smuggling has directed the State Government in particular the State Tax Department to develop a mechanism in consultation with the GST Council to block the generation of E-way Bills with respect to such trucks which are seized and confiscated in the State of Bihar.
CESTAT held that benefit of refund of SAD paid u/s. 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of notification no. 102/2007-CUS as amended by notification no. 93/2008-CUS dated 01/08/2008 is available even if the same is paid through DEPB scrip.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the sale of ready-mix-concrete doesnt involve any service element and hence there is no service tax liability. Manufacturing activity of ready-mix-concrete cannot be covered under the definition of works contract.
ITAT Bangalore held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act for it to be allowable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellants are not liable to pay service tax, provisions of section 70 of the Service Tax Act are not applicable. Hence, penalty for filing of service tax return belatedly is unsustainable.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that this court cannot be approached for protecting either the illegal occupation or unauthorized construction. Unauthorized construction, if it is illegal cannot be compounded and has to be demolished.
Bombay High Court held that there is no satisfactory explanation as to why from October 2014 till now no adjudication has taken place. Further, transfer of impugned notice to call book is also not informed to the petitioner. Hence, the same is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that freight charges are not includible in the transaction value when the sales take place at the factory gate. Here, appellants are mentioning the freight charges as separately in the invoices and there is nothing in the invoices or any other documents which shows that sales are on FOR destination basis
ITAT Bangalore held that irrevocable possession and irrevocable power of attorney to transfer/ sell to the developer makes it clear that absolute possession of land is given to the developer and the amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act.
