9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 101 to 120 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) |
|
2017 (4) TMI 1119 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential benefits. The appellant was permitted to take suo-moto abatement of duty for the period of factory closure without prior deposit or filing a claim. Additionally, the adjustment of excess duty paid in the previous month towards the current month's duty liability was deemed permissible based on a ruling by the Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal held that this action did not violate any rules or statutory schemes, resulting in a revenue-neutral outcome for the appellant.
2017 (5) TMI 1445 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appeal involved issues of demand and confirmation of duty, penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, and penalty under Rule 26 on M/S. Sachdeva Auto Centre. The appellant, LML Ltd., admitted liability, deposited tax with interest, and informed Revenue officials. The Member (Judicial) found the show cause notice untenable, setting aside the impugned order. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Parties were entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.
2017 (10) TMI 1022 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside most demands and penalties, except for the demand and penalty of ?19,177/- on Respondent No.1. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence and the Adjudicating Authority's failure to ensure witness attendance for cross-examination. The respondent-assessee was granted consequential benefits as per the law.
2017 (8) TMI 890 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the duty was paid under protest, justifying the refund claim by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, entitling them to a refund of ?12,50,000, subject to any balance dues adjustment, to be processed within 45 days with applicable interest as per Rules. The case emphasizes the significance of adherence to procedural requirements and legal principles concerning refund claims in excise cases.
2017 (4) TMI 157 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the demand of Service Tax against the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal agreed that as the respondent had already paid Sales Tax on the material portion under a composite contract, no additional Service Tax could be imposed. The judgment emphasized the necessity of accurately classifying contracts involving material supply and repair services to ascertain the liability for indirect taxes such as Service Tax, Excise Duty, and Sales Tax.
2017 (11) TMI 812 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Kanpur, regarding the classification of finished goods for duty payment. The Chief Commissioner clarified that the products were correctly classified under Chapter 49 due to their specific purpose and value added by printing. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Kanpur also confirmed the classification under Chapter Heading 4901. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and entitling the respondents to consequential benefits.
2017 (3) TMI 1499 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appeal was allowed in favor of the respondents regarding the classification of goods under Tariff Item No.73239100 or Tariff Item No.84385000. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the goods were not for industrial preparation but for domestic consumption in the Army's kitchen. Consequently, the respondents were exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 10/2006. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the validity of the order in favor of the respondents.
2017 (2) TMI 1333 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Order-in-Appeal. The respondent-assessee was granted consequential benefits as the Department failed to prove allegations of clandestine removal and/or manufacture based on loose papers and other evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the Department's failure to meet the burden of proof in such cases, leading to the rejection of the appeal and imposition of penalties.
2017 (8) TMI 1033 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The Central Excise Appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC due to the removal of goods without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not deny the shortage of goods or the removal of goods without payment of duty, leading to the penalty being justified. Rulings from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Allahabad High Court supported the imposition of penalty in cases where duty has escaped payment. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the Department, affirming the penalty under Section 11AC.
2017 (4) TMI 789 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the refund claim of the respondent-assessee for duty paid diesel supplied for a construction project under a World Bank initiative. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's argument that only manufacturers were entitled to exemption under the relevant notification, affirming the respondent-assessee's eligibility as a buyer of duty-paid goods. The cross objection by the respondent-assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, granting them consequential benefits.
2017 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, rendering the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal further concluded that the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance, relying on assumptions. As a job worker for a specific entity, the appellant's stock records were deemed incomplete but did not show any irregularities in clearance or payment of duty. Consequently, the show-cause notice and subsequent orders were set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law.
2017 (2) TMI 1029 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to delete the penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate defiance of the law by the assessee, concluding that there was no contumacious conduct as the tax was paid upon being informed by the Revenue.
2017 (3) TMI 357 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the manufacturing company and fully allowed the appeals by the individual appellants, granting them consequential relief as per law. The Tribunal found the evidence of duty evasion based on shortages of finished goods and loose slips to be unreliable and insufficient, setting aside the confirmation of demands. Additionally, the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was deemed unjustified as there was no proposal for confiscation of goods, leading to a modification of the original order and a reduction in the penalties imposed.
2017 (8) TMI 991 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the classification of finished products under Chapter Heading 49 instead of Chapter Heading 48, determining them as non-dutiable. The decision was based on the products' nature as money receipts interleaved with carbon, akin to printed carbon leaflets falling under Chapter 49. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals, allowing respondents to claim consequential benefits, emphasizing the importance of accurate tariff classification for determining dutiability and setting a precedent for similar cases in the printing industry.
2017 (2) TMI 983 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that "Calfix Grade-A-Technical" was not the respondent company's brand name, allowing them to claim SSI exemption. The Revenue failed to prove that "Calfix Grade-A" was the company's brand, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish exceeding the exemption limit. Consequently, the demand for duty and interest was deemed unjustified, and the respondents were entitled to consequential benefits under the law.
2017 (8) TMI 1092 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that they are entitled to pay duty under the normal scheme based on actual production rather than the compounded levy scheme. The decision emphasized the importance of specific declaration and procedural compliance for opting for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to calculate duty based on actual production and make necessary adjustments, highlighting the significance of adhering to prescribed procedures in such matters.
2017 (2) TMI 156 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal held that Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be used for the demand and recovery of service tax as it falls under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. Additionally, the show cause notice invoking Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for service tax was deemed unsustainable due to the error in invoking provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly applying relevant laws in tax matters and the need for precision in legal procedures for proper tax demand and recovery.
2017 (3) TMI 1459 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding service tax liability on commission received by sub-brokers. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that if the main broker has already paid service tax on the commission, the sub-broker cannot be taxed again on the same amount. This decision clarifies the tax treatment of sub-brokers when the main broker has fulfilled the tax obligation, establishing a key interpretation of Business Auxiliary Service laws.
2017 (2) TMI 210 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appeal was dismissed, ruling that if the main broker has paid service tax on the commission received, the sub-broker should not be liable for service tax on the same amount. The decision was based on established precedent and interpretation of relevant Tribunal cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal against the service tax demand on the sub-brokers.
2017 (1) TMI 806 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s Pati Ram Sonu Kumar Catering House, setting aside the demand of ?2,62,174 for Service Tax on outdoor catering services. The Tribunal found the show-cause-notice lacking sustainability as it solely relied on a statement without corroborative evidence. Despite admitting and paying the tax liability, the appellant was relieved of the disputed demands and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.
|
