Judgements by Bimal Jain

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

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relied upon its own decision in the case of Arvind Ltd. Vs. CCE [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 91/46 GST 566 (Ahd. - CESTAT)] and held that where two Exemption Notifications, one granting absolute unconditional exemption and oth

On appeal being filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the Revenue, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh where the Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the law

The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the Appellant and held that the no Customs duty is leviable on quantity of burning loss as it is neither cleared out of the custom bonded warehouse for home consumption nor otherwise disposed of, b

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 5 of the Excise Appeals Rules has no application in the instant case because a contention that the Appellant was not provider of service but was recipient of service is not 'a piece of evidence', it is a 'plea