Judgements by Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble High Court held that the Exemption Notification is a conditional Notification and Section 5A(1A) of the Excise Act is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, payment of Service tax by job worker i.e. FMGIL and Cenvat credit availme

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai after affirming that fact that the Assessee has written letter to the Department for granting refund of the amount, held that where Assessee's appeal has been allowed with consequential relief, it is incumbent upon the Reve

The Hon’ble High Court held that the transaction could not be treated as “Deemed sale of goods” under Section 2(1)(zc)(vi) of DVAT Act.

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that pertaining to denial of refund claims on ground that Impugned services are not eligible for Cenvat credit, the matter stands decided in favour of the Appellant in its own case by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and is no

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka relying upon the decision in the case of GSP Infratech Development Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [2013-TIOL-399-HC-KAR-ST], held that the words "amount payable by a person" used in Section 87 of the Finance Ac

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not interfered with the factual aspects which were recorded by the Settlement Commission in its judgment. However, the High Court has stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commissio

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 19 of the Excise Rules permits export of the goods under bond/ Letter of Undertaking (LUT) without payment of duty, subject to following the procedure and conditions as may be prescribed. The Notification issu

The Hon’ble High Court directed the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to take up the appeal filed by the Petitioner for disposing the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the issues raised by the Appellants and answered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour has to be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits and there being no finding on the issues in the manner in

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was