Judgements by Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the decision in the Blue Star case and in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh [2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL], held that the Appellant has provided the service of procuring purchase orders for their f

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal in favour of the Appellant and held that the present transaction is a composite Works contract involving men and labour.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the law provides that in the event, amount is not paid within a specified time, then, the Department will have to pay interest, unless and until, the Department had received any preventive or prohibitory order and dir

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the following case laws: · CCE Surat-III Vs. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 0785 (Guj.)] further, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2009 (243) ELT A 120 (SC)] · CCE, Pune-III Vs. Ajinkya E

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that there was no reason for the Department not to effect refund. The question as to unjust enrichment is before the Tribunal and all arguments in that regard would be considered by the Tribunal. In the absenc

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal in favour of the Department and held that the OL is a dealer liable to pay Sales tax.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata relying upon the following case laws: - Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (232) ELT 29 (Tri-LB)] duly upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court also vide its order dated November 4, 2009; - CCE, Hyderabad-III

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: - Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner wa

It can be construed that the consideration received for providing services in relation to the Chit fund business, being merely a transaction in money, would not be exigible to Service tax either prior or post Negative List regime.

It was found that there were substantial grounds for taking lenient view as it indicates that Appellate could not have any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service tax and even Adjudicating Authority waived the penalty under Section 76 by taki