Bank of India Vs Neurostar Hospital Private Limited (NCLT Mumbai) The application was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a financial creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The total amount claimed to be in default was approximately ₹28.51 crore, with the date […]
The Tribunal held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proof of actual cessation of liability. It found that mere non-payment or absence of confirmation is insufficient to establish remission.
The Tribunal held that service tax applies only where a goods transport agency issues a consignment note. It ruled that transport by individual truck operators does not attract tax under GTA provisions.
The Court ruled that temporary business inactivity due to genuine medical reasons cannot justify cancellation without proper consideration. The impugned orders were declared arbitrary and set aside.
The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between procedural and substantive requirements in exemption notifications. It held that procedural lapses should not result in denial of benefits. The ruling supports a pragmatic approach to compliance.
The Court held that challenges to ITC blocking cannot be entertained at the show cause stage. It ruled that adjudication must first take place based on facts and evidence.
The ruling examines whether imported battery components qualify as parts based on their essential role. It clarifies that items solely used in batteries can be classified under parts of electric accumulators.
The Tribunal held that once an issue is decided up to the Supreme Court, it cannot be reopened. The Department was barred from challenging the same matter again.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed beyond the statutory 45-day limit cannot be entertained. It ruled that delay exceeding the condonable period is not permissible under Section 61.
The Tribunal held that minor excess quantity supplied to cover transit damage does not amount to mis-declaration. It ruled that confiscation and penalty were not justified.
