9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 101 to 120 of 505 Records Search Text: 63 rlt 1 |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (504) Circulars (1) |
|
2020 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT The court declared Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, as amended by the Finance Act, 2016, unconstitutional. It also ruled that Notification No. 29/2018-Cus dated 1st March 2018 was effective only from 6th March 2018, the date of its electronic publication. Consequently, the court ordered the refund of excess customs duty and IGST collected from the petitioners.
2009 (8) TMI 521 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recovery of Cenvat credit under Notification No. 50/2003. The Tribunal held that if credit was legally taken and utilized, there was no basis for recovery, even for inputs in closing stock. Citing a Larger Bench decision, it emphasized that the right to utilize credit against future liability becomes indefeasible if there was no initial illegality in taking the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
2009 (1) TMI 169 - CESTAT Bangalore The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dismissed the appeal and cross objection in the case of M/s. Sky Gourmet Pvt. Ltd. The issue was whether the assessee providing 'Outdoor Catering Service' should pay service tax on goods sold to recipients of service and be ineligible for certain notifications. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the appellants were not entitled to one notification but allowed benefits under others, with a 50% abatement. The Tribunal's final order was pronounced on 30/01/2009, with Shri T.K. Jayaraman and Shri M.V. Ravindran presiding.
2009 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision that preparing a Tableau for a government display on Republic Day did not incur service tax liability as it did not qualify as an advertisement service with a commercial purpose. The Tribunal found that the activity did not fall under the category of advertisement services, similar to the precedent set in the Star Neon Sign case, where preparing a tableau without commercial intent did not constitute a service by an advertisement agency.
2007 (2) TMI 374 - CESTAT, KOLKATA The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that condemned rolls of rolling mills, once capital goods, were not liable for Excise Duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that goods must be manufactured to be considered excisable, which was not the case with the condemned rolls in question. The judgment set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
2006 (10) TMI 66 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside demands for differential duty, penalties, and interest. It concluded that the Department failed to establish a relationship between the parties or that the "Transfer Price" was manipulated to evade duty. The transactions were deemed at arm's length, and the assessable value was considered fair and reasonable.
2006 (9) TMI 47 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The case involved a company exporting goods and claiming multiple benefits on the same exports. The company's refund claim was initially rejected by the Dy. Commissioner but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the debiting of the Central Excise portion of the drawback in the Cenvat account. The judgment clarified that exporters have the choice between drawback, Cenvat credit, or rebate but cannot avail a combination of all. Ultimately, the Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the Dy. Commissioner's orders were restored, allowing the appeals.
2001 (9) TMI 391 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the respondents' eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 5/98-C.E., ruling in favor of the 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) manufacturing Plastic Agglomerate (Recycled) for clearance to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding that the respondents met the conditions for exemption without discrimination, emphasizing that the exemption applied to 100% EOUs re-processing plastic waste in India and clearing it to the DTA.
2001 (8) TMI 735 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The appellate tribunal rejected the appeal, confirming the demand for duty from the appellants for manufacturing goods through contractors, denying the exemption claim under Notification No. 217/86, and upholding the time-barred demand due to the appellants' failure to disclose relevant information.
2001 (5) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Commissioner's order was set aside due to reliance on unreliable evidence, lack of corroboration, and violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing their appeal. The lack of admissible evidence, failure to allow cross-examination, and inapplicability of penalty provisions under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act led to the decision in favor of the appellants.
2019 (9) TMI 219 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals. The decision was based on various legal principles, including the computation of duty liability as per Central Excise Valuation Rules, challenges to the show cause notice, and the application of the res judicata principle to prevent repeated proceedings against the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that subjecting the appellant to multiple proceedings for the same period was not in accordance with the law, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.
2013 (9) TMI 169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the modification application. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived as Rs. 15 lakhs had already been deposited. The Tribunal emphasized the need for issuing a show cause notice before dismissing an appeal for non-compliance with a stay order and highlighted the importance of principles of natural justice and fair proceedings. A separate judgment was recorded by a dissenting member, while the majority opinion waived the pre-deposit requirement for hearing the appeal within 30 days. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2010 (4) TMI 934 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower authorities' decision to deny the simultaneous benefits of SSI exemption notification and Cenvat credit facility. It held that manufacturers could avail Cenvat credit for branded goods while claiming SSI exemption for non-branded goods, provided the branded goods were cleared on full payment of duty. The Tribunal also ruled that the Apex Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Ramesh Food Products was not applicable to the case, affirming the entitlement to SSI exemption for non-branded goods.
2009 (3) TMI 154 - CESTAT, Bangalore The appeal was filed challenging the liability of the appellants to discharge service tax for road transport services under Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The Commissioner confirmed the tax but dropped penalties. The appellants claimed entitlement to abatement under the notification despite not being a Goods Transport Agency. The Tribunal, considering relevant case law and circulars, ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that they were eligible for the benefit of the notification as recipients of the service. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore.
2008 (9) TMI 148 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal held that manufacturers of Oxygen and Nitrogen, who transport goods in their vehicles and collect transportation charges from buyers, are not liable to pay service tax as they are not considered a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The liability to pay service tax rests with the person paying the freight, in this case, the buyer. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, relieving the manufacturers from the service tax liability and emphasizing the importance of the actual payer of the freight in determining tax obligations.
2007 (10) TMI 184 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original and allow the refund in a revenue appeal concerning duty paid under protest. The Tribunal found no evidence of unjust enrichment as the duty was paid pending appeal without passing on the burden to consumers. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing the appellants' compliance with due process and the absence of unjust enrichment, leading to the confirmation of the refund order.
2007 (6) TMI 99 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The judgment ruled in favor of the respondent assessee, affirming their entitlement to the small-scale exemption notification. It was held that the brand name "Soni" did not establish ownership, thus not denying the exemption benefit. Additionally, the demand made under the show-cause notice was deemed time-barred due to the absence of penalties, following the principle that duty cannot be demanded without penalties under Section 11A(2). The decision emphasized the importance of proving ownership and connection for exemption denial and referenced precedents supporting the position.
2007 (1) TMI 19 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Supreme Court held that the value of scrap retained by the assessee must be included in the assessable value of motor vehicle parts manufactured on a job work basis, based on legal precedents and Cost Accounting Standard No. 4. The Court rejected the Tribunal's contrary view and emphasized that scrap proceeds should be part of the overall conversion charges. Additionally, the Court found the demand not barred by limitation due to the assessee's intentional evasion of duty payment, upholding the demand and adjusting penalties accordingly. The Tribunal partially allowed the manufacturer's appeal, fully allowed the officers' appeals, and rejected the Revenue's appeal for penalty enhancement.
2006 (2) TMI 41 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal sanctioning a refund to the appellants. It held that the Commissioner lacked authority to direct the filing of an appeal as per Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, which was not applicable to service providers during the relevant period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner exceeded his powers by reviewing the order and directing the appeal, leading to the Orders-in-Appeal being set aside.
2005 (11) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY The High Court quashed the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision allowing the appeal filed by the respondents regarding the possession of prohibited goods under the Customs Act. The court found that the burden of proof had shifted to the respondents, who failed to explain the large quantity of smuggled goods in their possession. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, emphasizing the need to consider established legal principles regarding the burden of proof in customs cases. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the redemption of goods as per the Commissioner's earlier directive and placing an interim stay on the Tribunal's decision.
|
