Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC grants Cultgear Pvt Ltd refund, pending GST tribunal formation, with a bank guarantee. Liberty to appeal extended til...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Madras High Court judgment in Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) on entitlement to persona...
Goods and Services Tax : Discover how the Odisha AAR allows ITC on exempt services where the supplier has charged GST. Understand conditions and implicatio...
Goods and Services Tax : In M/s. THDC India Ltd, Uttarakhand AAR ruled that government authority services like design engineering and water tank constructi...
Goods and Services Tax : In Piramal Enterprises Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay HC ruled against revenue's selective interpretation of business transfe...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Goods and Services Tax : Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The ...
Goods and Services Tax : The 45th meeting of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) is scheduled to be held on September 17, 2021. The Ministry...
Custom Duty, Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issu...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC remands R.S Marketing's case, granting a fresh hearing on ITC discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A due to non-co...
Service Tax : Zest Buildtek Promotors Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)Issuance of attachment order under provi...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that failing to record reasons in INS-01 before initiating a search under Section 67 of CGST Act invalidates th...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court rules that appeals cannot be dismissed for procedural lapses, emphasizing timely filing. Key case: Indian Potash...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Kerala High Court ruling on luxury tax applicability to services at Ayurveda Centre, Beauty Parlor, and Convention Cen...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the ...
Service Tax : Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to ser...
Custom Duty : the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the State) from whole of the duty as specified under the First Schedule and whole of...
Excise Duty : Grants exemption from Basic Excise Duty to goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for the relief and rehabilitation of p...
Custom Duty : New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by ...
Redicura Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) is a manufacturer of P&P medicines chargeable to Central Excise duty. For the period April 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003 (impugned period), the Appellant was availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 9/03-CE dated March 1, 2003 (SSI Notification).
Since, the dispute arose as to whether the Respondent was entitled for concessional rate of duty or not, the Respondent paid normal rate of 15% ad valorem duty and sought for refund of the extra duty paid amounting to Rs. 27,66,970/-.
Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) is engaged in the export of ‘Medimix’ brand of Ayurvedic Toilet Soap, falling under CSH 3401.11.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Respondent filed a rebate claim on June 17, 2008 under Rule 18 of Excise Rules for refund of the duty paid for goods exported during the period July 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007
Department cannot raise same grounds in the second round of ligation when the grounds taken in the first round of litigation were disposed of and no appeal was filed against the Order pertaining to first litigation
The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat relying upon the decision in case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)], allowed the appeal in favour of the Respondent and held that where all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of authorities when first SCN was issued, while issuing second and third SCN’s on same and similar facts and on the basis of same inspection made on September 16, 1996, Department cannot allege suppression of facts by Respondent.
The nearest time in terms of Rule 7 of Excise Valuation Rules, could be the time subsequent to the time and date of clearance/removal of the goods under assessment from the factory to depots when the transaction value at or about the same time is not available
Mumbai Customs House has no jurisdiction to raise demand alleging mis-declaration of imported goods, when the goods were imported at Chennai port and Customs Authorities at Chennai had cleared goods holding that the description of the goods has not been mis-declared.
The dominant purpose of medical treatment is medical services and integral to such a service is a medical procedure that involves administering medicines and drugs and may involve, implants, stents etc., as integral to a successfully medical treatment/ procedure.
Input tax credit availed by the petitioner could not be denied and there is no need to reverse the input tax credit availed by the purchaser of the goods on the grounds that the selling dealer has not filed returns or not paid taxes or they were unregistered dealers or their registrations were retrospectively cancelled.
Government has exempted the Capital goods specified in the First schedule and Second Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, when cleared against a Status Holder Incentive Scheme duty credit scrip issued to a Status Holder by the Regional Authority in accordance with paragraph 3.16 of the Foreign Trade Policy from:
