9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 5784 Records Search Text: Ex kanpur |
| Search Results |
| Acts / Rules (17) Articles (34) Case-Laws (5515) Circulars (53) Forum (11) Highlights (2) Manuals (7) News (14) Notifications (130) Schedules (1) |
|
2024 (6) TMI 389 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to deviate from its previous decision involving the same appellant, leading to the reversal of the Commissioner's order. The judgment, pronounced on 04 June 2024, concluded the proceedings favorably for the appellants.
2023 (10) TMI 1161 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal determined that the footwear supplied to armed forces and paramilitary forces should be assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to the retail sales price being embossed on the products. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Department's order, ruling that the demand was unsustainable. Additionally, the penalty of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on the Secretary of the appellant firm was also set aside. The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, granting them consequential relief in accordance with the law.
2001 (12) TMI 895 - ITAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty, penalties, and the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants, M/s Shri Ram Industries and Sh. S. Krishna. The judgment highlighted the lack of concrete evidence, proper findings, and legal basis for the imposed duties and penalties, emphasizing the importance of established facts and legal compliance in excise matters.
2025 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal determined that the appellant's failure to initially comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, rendered the appeal non-maintainable. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement rectified the initial procedural defect. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, emphasizing that the appeal should proceed without revisiting the issue of mandatory pre-deposit. The Tribunal upheld that procedural defects can be corrected by later compliance, allowing the appeal to be considered substantively.
2025 (1) TMI 1253 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to insufficient grounds, given the prior Tribunal decision on the non-marketability of the intermediate product. It upheld the demand for excise duty on the final product, Narrow Woven Fabric, as the appellant availed CENVAT credit on inputs, disqualifying them from exemption under Notification No.30/2004-Central Excise. The case was remanded to the Original Authority for re-computation of the duty demand, allowing adjustments for duties already paid on the intermediate product.
2025 (1) TMI 785 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant (CMU), concluding that the issuance of Input Service Distributor (ISD) invoices by Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. to its CMU was legal and correct under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the CMU was entitled to avail CENVAT credit for input services related to goods on which excise duty was paid. The decision emphasized the beneficial nature of the CENVAT scheme to prevent tax cascading. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.
2024 (7) TMI 269 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It determined that the ex-gratia payment received by the Appellant, a biscuit manufacturer, for underutilization of manufacturing capacity was compensatory and not a service liable for service tax under Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal relied on a precedent that ex-gratia charges for underutilization do not constitute a taxable service, emphasizing that the payment was not for any service but compensation for unintended events.
2024 (5) TMI 410 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for de-novo consideration. The authority must verify the appellant's claim of maintaining separate records for inputs and re-determine the issues within three months. The appeal was allowed, and the matter requires fresh adjudication.
2024 (5) TMI 271 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing judicial discipline and the principle of res judicata. It allowed the appeal, granting the Appellant consequential relief, including a refund with interest. The Tribunal directed the refund of the amount deposited by the Appellant under Section 35F, with interest at 12% per annum, from the date of deposit to the date of refund, as per Section 35FF. This decision underscores the finality of the Tribunal's previous orders and the Appellant's entitlement to interest on the refunded amount, despite the Adjudicating Authority's initial denial based on prior legal provisions.
2024 (4) TMI 433 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, determining that the road construction was a distinct activity and not part of a composite contract. Consequently, the value of road construction was excluded from the gross taxable value for service tax purposes. The appeal was allowed, and the demand for service tax and penalties was quashed.
2024 (3) TMI 418 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, determining that the appellant must pay customs duty based on the gold's current value at the time of release, in accordance with Section 15 of the Customs Act. The appellant's refund claim was deemed non-maintainable as they failed to challenge the duty assessment orders through appropriate appellate procedures, as required by precedents.
2023 (11) TMI 887 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing that the refund amount, initially credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, be credited to the Appellant's account. The Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, as the excise duty under the compounded levy scheme was not passed on to customers. The refund was not listed as a current asset in the balance sheet for FY 2015-16, as the refund claim was made only after the Tribunal's final order in 2022. The decision was pronounced on 22.11.2023.
2023 (12) TMI 115 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appeal against the denial of permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the period from January to June 2017, was deemed inconsequential. The appellant had already finalized the value and paid the differential duty along with interest, rendering the proceedings theoretical. The court noted that no further action was required against the appellant, except in cases where duty was short paid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, but the substantive issues were moot.
2023 (2) TMI 181 - Supreme Court The court held that interest on the differential duty is payable from the due date of payment of provisional duty until the payment of the balance/differential duty upon final assessment. The case was decided in line with the judgment in a similar case involving Steel Authority of India Limited. The court found the issues to be identical and disposed of the special leave petition accordingly, with pending applications also being disposed of.
2022 (9) TMI 44 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The tribunal held that the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act cannot be fulfilled by debiting the electronic credit ledger under the CGST Act. The appellant was granted four weeks to make the required pre-deposit to rectify the non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed due to the failure to meet the pre-deposit requirement initially, but the appellant was given an opportunity to cure this defect within the specified timeframe.
2022 (8) TMI 538 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal due to the lack of substantial evidence beyond the notebook entries and the appellant's statement. The decision emphasized the importance of tangible evidence and the failure of the Department to meet the required standard of proof for allegations of clandestine removal.
2022 (1) TMI 1296 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties imposed on the appellants, except for a partial confirmation against Keyman Laminators. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial and corroborative evidence to establish charges of clandestine removal and held that reliance on third-party documents and retracted statements was insufficient.
2021 (8) TMI 1144 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeals, confirming that the exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE was correctly utilized, and the reversal of cenvat credit was unnecessary. The demand for cenvat credit, interest, and penalty was overturned, and a refund of the deposited amount was ordered with interest.
2020 (2) TMI 222 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving allegations of willful suppression of value in service tax returns. The Tribunal held that since the information regarding the alleged suppression was available in the balance sheet, the allegation could not be sustained. As a result, the extended period for demand of service tax was deemed inapplicable, and the demand for service tax was set aside. The Tribunal also determined that the penalties sought by the Revenue under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, were not justified due to the lack of established suppression.
2020 (1) TMI 6 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that ex-gratia job charges received by the appellant were not subject to Service Tax as they were deemed compensatory payments for unforeseen events, not payments for services. The charges did not fall under declared services and were considered compensation for delays or breaches, indicating a remedy for uncertain eventualities. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on the grounds that Service Tax was not applicable to the ex-gratia charges.
|
