Kerala High Court held that writ petition is misconceived and non-maintainable as petitioner didn’t co-operate for concluding the proceedings by the Tribunal on remand.
CESTAT Mumbai held that prior to amendment i.e. till 31.03.2008 CENVAT Credit on outward transportation from the ‘place of removal’ is admissible. As entire period of dispute is pre-amendment, CENVAT Credit available and demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 leviable as involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance is well established.
Customs department was directed to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand as the same were perishable in nature and were meant for human consumption, made the court find it appropriate to order the release of the goods, however, subject to the condition that Respondent should furnish a bank guarantee in order to safeguard the interests of the department.
No excise duty was leviable under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of illicit clearing as the department had miserably failed to substantiate the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance by any tangible or corroborative evidence
Excise duty demand of approximately 24 crores against Volkswagen India was quashed on the amount recovered as liquidated damages on the ground of non-violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 and in the event of rejection of the invoice value as transaction value, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to re-determine value without recourse to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules.
Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
Deduction claimed by assessee in return of income which was directly relatable to the insurance activities, as it did not fall under section 80P(2) i.e., Insurance activities.
In a recent Delhi High Court judgment, it was ruled that GST proceedings initiated by different authorities can be consolidated. Learn more about case and its implications.
Granting a short period of time to file a reply violates the legal right of an assessee. Learn about judgment of Madras High Court in case of M/s Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai
