ITAT Jaipur held that ex-parte order passed without considering and dealing with the submission of the assessee is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter remanded.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as appellant is not a service recipient, service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) in case of bank charges paid by Indian Bank to Foreign Bank and reimbursed from the appellant.
Gujarat High Court held that since the order passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and no demand is outstanding against the appellant, it is unjustified to withhold the seized gold. Accordingly, directed to release the remaining gold at the earlier.
A detailed overview of ITAT Guwahati’s ruling in the case of S.B. Traders Vs ACIT, where the Tribunal called for re-adjudication due to insufficient opportunity provided to the assessee.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Granite Slabs is correctly classified under 21561200 and not under 68022390. Accordingly, the demand on this count is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside.
An in-depth analysis of case between Blue Reservoir Business Services LLP and DCIT where ITAT Bangalore directed re-adjudication because assessee was not well-versed with ITBA
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
CESTAT Bangalore held that allegation of the department that the quantity of goods as shown in the purchase invoices were brought into the factory, processed, converted into finished goods and removed clandestinely without payment of duty are not supported with sufficient evidence are liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that the claim for deduction under section 80G of the Income Tax Act in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses cannot be denied.
The CESTAT Kolkata has ruled in favor of Haldia Petrochemicals Limited in Excise Appeal No. 762/2010. The appeal challenged the duty demand of Rs. 10,67,40,103/- under the proviso to Section 11A, along with interest and penalty.
