Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pep

Bogus Sales/ Purchases: Addition solely on the basis of information received from the sales-tax department is not sustainable. Suspicion of the highest degree cannot take the place of evidence.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that price was genuinely revised & gets reduced by amending the MOA and there was nothing wrong on the part of the Appellant to declare the price in the BOE. Hence, Customs duty should be determined on the basis of assessa

Hon’ble Tribunal held there is no reason to differentiate between the cars imported under Carnet and the cars imported otherwise. Valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act clearly provides that the value shall be the transaction value where the b

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that 'Duty' as defined in Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, is wide enough to cover all kinds of duty, including SAD. Hence, as per Section 3(8) of Customs Tariff Act, provisions of Customs Act insofar as they rel

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

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist. Hence, th