Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court examined whether a taxpayer’s selection of “No” for personal hearing could override the statutory req...
Goods and Services Tax : The Orissa High Court examined whether tax could be demanded after reversal of the disputed ITC. It held that raising a fresh dema...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed a judgment that held mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal does not amount to valid comm...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. How...
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 : The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both p...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 7...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice...
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 ...
MCA issues Seventh Order for removal of difficulties which relates to appointment of auditors in Partly Government Companies The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has come out with the Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Seventh Order, 2014 dated September 4, 2014 in order to remove difficulties relating to appointment of auditors in partly Government Companies.
The Hon’ble High Court held that once order to pay duty was set aside, the refund is automatic. Refusal of refund on the basis that the exigibility of tax is yet to be adjudicated was not a valid reason. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Multiplex Fertilizers (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 359 (High Court of Karnataka)]
Accordingly, it was held that the manufacturer or exporter is not barred from seeking a determination of the Brand Rate of drawback under Rule 7 merely because, at the time of export, the Petitioner had applied for and granted drawback at All Industry Rate as determined under Rule 3.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi also relied upon the decision in the Metric Solution case and held that Cenvat credit in respect of inputs/ input services received by an output service provider during the period prior to his obtaining Service tax registration is admissible and denial of Cenvat credit on this ground is not correct.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that there is no dispute as to the fact that amount lying in balance in the Cenvat credit account of the Appellant. Further, it was noted that refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit does not fall under any of the rules and that there are no express or implicit provisions in the Excise Act and the Credit Rules for grant of refund of Cenvat Credit balance lying unutilized at the time of closure of the unit.
For the purpose of availing Cenvat credit, there is no requirement that the Service tax should have been deposited by the service provider before the availment of the credit. In terms of Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the Service tax paid or payable as is indicated in the invoice.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that in terms of agreement, principals were required to maintain godown and hence, principals were liable to pay godown rent and the Appellant acted only as their agent. Similarly, bills of labour contractors for arranging loading and unloading and bills of transporters were in name of principals and not in name of assessee. Hence, payment against these bills was made by the Appellant acting as pure agent on behalf of principal. Therefore, these expenses would not be includible in assessable value.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Respondent could claim the Cenvat credit in case of the defective Products returned and it cannot be denied merely due to the fact that the refund of the duty paid on the finished goods which have been returned being defective hasn’t been claimed under erstwhile Rule 173L of the Rules.
In the instant case, Reiter India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) imported a consignment of Textile Machinery parts vide invoice no. 3506445/2000 dated May 10, 2011 valued at 997740.24 CHF vide Bill of Entry no. 3610581 dated May 25, 2011.
In the instant case, the Revenue alleged violation of conditions of duty-free import against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Petitioner) and issued demand notice cum adjudication order (Impugned Demand) directing the Petitioner to pay Central Excise and Customs duties along
