It is imperative that such provisions must be restored in the GST Law so as not to sow the seeds of any fresh ground for litigation in GST regime, which is being envisaged as an epic reform of indirect taxation post-independence.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held as under: - The Adjudicating Authority had rightly computed the interest amount from the due date till the date of payment in respect of demand for the month of January, 2011, by working out interest at 13% up to M
Hon’ble Apex Court held that it cannot be the intention of the Legislature to provide rebate only on one item i.e. either on inputs or final products. It was further held that giving such restrictive meaning to Rule 18 of the Excise Rules would not o
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata held that since, the Department has dropped six periodical Show Cause Notices issued for the subsequent period following the principle laid down in the Jayaswal Neco Ltd. case, that Cenvat credit is admissible on rails and
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai has relying upon the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Abir Steel Rolling Mills [2013 (7) TMI 405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], held that when the proceedings against the Respondent stand concluded on payment of dis
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi has relied upon the plethora of judgments and held that merely on the basis of papers/records seized allegedly containing the production & dispatch or statement of any employee/director of the Appellant accepting the facts w
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that on clarification, the Appellant has issued Credit Notes & against the said Credit Notes, the buyer of the goods has returned the excess charged Excise duty.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi, held that a plain reading of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules clarifies that there would be no restriction if assessee avails Cenvat credit on procurement of inputs/input services prior to start of manufacture. In
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai, applied the ratio of the Apex court decision in case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai [2006-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-MAD], which squarely applies to the instant case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after distinguishi
The Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that while the Respondent had declared that goods were not meant for retail sale, revenue could not produce any evidence to contrary and hence, duty was rightly paid