Judgements by Bimal Jain

Vide Order-in-Original dated May 31, 2013, Service tax demand of Rs. 30,59,07,287/- for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 was confirmed along with interest, Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,25,935/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered as

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2000 taxmann.com 53 (SC)] which was followed by the Tribunal in various decisions, held that since there w

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after observing that the Abu Road unit had reversed the Cenvat credit taken to the extent of refund filed, held that although Satnoor unit had cleared Intermediate Products on payment of Excise duty, wherein the price of Int

The Hon’ble Tribunal directed the lower authorities, especially the Deputy Director, DGCEI, Goa to defreeze the account forthwith by issuing appropriate instructions to the Appellant's bankers.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after analysing Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules held that: - In the light of Rule 7 of the Credit Rules which provides the manner of distribution of Cenvat credit by ISD, the basic requisite condition for the distr

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