CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of CBEC Circular F. No. 137/167/2006-CX dated 3.10.2007 vis-à-vis provisions of section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to conclusion of entire proceedings on payment of service tax along with interest not available, as assessee failed to pay reduced penalty as required.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deposit in PLA is not a payment of duty. Accordingly, refund claim for unutilized balance in PLA is not hit by limitation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Madras High Court held that as test report of petitioner and respondent differs, it is directed to carry out independent laboratory test to come to a conclusion that the whether the imported goods contained Polyrethrene or not to decide levy of Anti-dumping duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that as and when the CPC has erred while processing the return of an assessee which causes tax liability on an assessee, then lawfully the appellate authorities should not cite procedure as a tool/ruse to deny the just claim of an assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available as nexus between sale of gold jewellery and purchase of flat duly established.
When the drill ship was located in an area which was outside the territorial purview of the Finance Act, of 1994, service tax could not be demanded on repair and maintenance work carried out in non-designated areas.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee furnished the return of income and audit report only after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as failure was due to ignorance and misguidance.
In re JCP Agro Process P Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) In case of purchase of tobacco leaves/bhukko from the agriculturist, the applicant is liable to pay GST on RCM basis at 5% [2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST] in terms of[Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017], Sr. No. 109 of Schedule I. Applicant is liable […]
