9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 101 to 120 of 777 Records Search Text: Gtc ltd |
| Search Results |
| Circulars (4) Case-Laws (763) Forum (2) Articles (7) News (1) |
|
2018 (5) TMI 1054 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants on 17.05.2018. The allegations of clandestine removal of cigarettes and imposition of penalties under Rule 209A were not substantiated by evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the requirement of physical handling of goods for penalties under Rule 209A, which was not proven in this case.
2018 (8) TMI 1513 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credit on outdoor catering services, business auxiliary services (Sodexo pass for employees), group insurance services, and furniture hire services for the specified period. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit on these services was unjustified based on the broader definition of input services at the relevant time and precedents supporting the eligibility of these services for credit. The impugned order disallowing credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any necessary consequential reliefs.
2017 (12) TMI 1300 - CESTAT MUMBAI The appeal was filed against the denial of CENVAT credit on 'outdoor catering service' by M/s John Deere India Pvt Ltd. The first appellate authority held that operating a canteen, with or without an outdoor catering service provider, is a mandatory requirement under the Factories Act, making it an admissible input service for manufacturing final products. The recovery of costs from employees did not amount to procurement of service by the appellant, rendering them ineligible for CENVAT credit. The judgment concluded that the imposition of penalties was unwarranted, setting aside the penalty and disposing of the appeal accordingly.
2015 (6) TMI 912 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Revenue appealed against the denial of input service credit to the respondent by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case involving Outdoor Catering Service, Rent-a-cab service, and Travel Agent Service. The Member found merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service, modifying the order to declare the credit inadmissible for service tax borne by the worker. As a result, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the Revenue.
2011 (11) TMI 520 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal upheld that "outdoor catering services" provided in the factory canteen qualify as 'input services' for CENVAT credit, rejecting the Department's argument based on worker count. The Tribunal also denied CENVAT credit for "group insurance service" based on a High Court precedent favoring the assessee. The decision emphasized the importance of legal precedents and consistency in interpreting the CENVAT Credit Rules, underscoring the need for adherence to established legal principles in tax matters.
2013 (1) TMI 662 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a cigarette manufacturer, in a dispute over the valuation of captively consumed goods for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal held that no notional profit margin should be added to the assessable value due to the manufacturer's continuous losses over several years. Emphasizing the importance of considering actual profits rather than notional margins, the Tribunal granted a complete waiver of the duty and interest pre-deposit, staying the recovery during the appeal process. This decision clarifies the principles governing the valuation of captively consumed goods for excise duty purposes.
2011 (8) TMI 311 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD The Tribunal upheld the admissibility of cenvat credit on service tax paid for workmen's compensation insurance, considering it a business-related activity due to legal obligations. Relying on relevant High Court judgments and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the insurance premium was eligible for credit, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
2011 (2) TMI 1319 - Bombay High Court The High Court held that the cutting and embossing of foil in cigarette manufacturing does not constitute dutiable manufacture as no distinct marketable commodity emerges. The Court upheld the decision to grant the refund claim of the assessee under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
2009 (5) TMI 420 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing that the admissibility of CENVAT credit hinged on whether the cost of supplying food in the factory canteen was considered part of the assessable value of final products. The Tribunal directed the original authority to reassess this aspect, highlighting the significance of this determination in determining the appellants' entitlement to the credit. The decision aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case and for the original authority to make an informed decision based on the pertinent facts.
2008 (7) TMI 52 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for detailed findings on flow back and limitation. The Court instructed the Tribunal to provide a separate finding on the liability of the company compared to the job workers. Despite not expressing an opinion on the dispute's merits, the Court urged the Tribunal to expedite the decision within six months due to the case's age and prolonged litigation. The appeals were disposed of with no order on costs, leaving all contentions open for further consideration.
1997 (12) TMI 129 - SC Order The Supreme Court allowed the appeal regarding the classification of the product under heading 4818.90 for the period 1985-86. The appellant's contention was accepted based on previous decisions where similar products were classified under the same heading. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
2019 (10) TMI 438 - ITAT DELHI The Tribunal upheld the addition of ?17,31,25,389 on account of bogus sundry creditors, deleted the addition of ?8,58,44,005 related to sundry debtors, and confirmed the overall assessment except for the addition related to sundry debtors. The appeal was partly allowed, dismissing the contention regarding improper service of notice under Section 143(2).
2005 (4) TMI 487 - CESTAT, KOLKATA The Tribunal determined that M/s. NET was the manufacturer of the cigarettes, not M/s. GTC. Consequently, M/s. GTC was found not liable for excise duty or penalties. The penalties imposed on M/s. GTC were deemed erroneous as Rule 209A does not apply to manufacturers. Penalties on M/s. NET were upheld, acknowledging its distinct legal status. The original order was partially amended to reflect these conclusions.
2018 (9) TMI 1378 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appellant, engaged in exporting I.T. services, sought refunds for service tax paid on input services. The Tribunal allowed the majority of the claimed refund, except for minor amounts denied due to incorrect naming on invoices and small denied amounts, affirming the appellant's entitlement to most of the refund. The dispute mainly revolved around the cenvatability of catering services, with the Tribunal ultimately supporting the credit availed by the appellant based on established legal interpretations. The lack of detailed descriptions on some invoices was not deemed sufficient to disqualify the appellant from claiming the credit.
2016 (11) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the order in a case involving three entities in the manufacturing and trading of glass articles. It emphasized the need for a clear identification of the liable party for duty demand and penalties, stressing that duty liabilities should be fixed on a legally sustainable basis. The lack of legal clarity in the order led to remanding the matter for a fresh decision, with a requirement to determine the legal status of the units for fixing duty liability and imposing penalties on identified persons or units for any contraventions found.
2016 (1) TMI 817 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal set aside the demand for reversal of cenvat credit availed on outdoor catering services during a specific period, except for any demand within the limitation period from the show cause notice date. Penalties were also overturned due to the appellant's bona-fide belief in availing cenvat credit on service tax paid for canteen services collected from employees. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts that can be raised at any stage, particularly when based on a bona-fide belief.
2012 (12) TMI 102 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The appeals challenging the grant of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service were allowed by the Tribunal, remanding the matter to the original authority for verification of facts and compliance with conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the prescribed conditions for claiming such credit and providing an opportunity for the respondent to present evidence. Failure to pay the fee for the required verification would result in the department's appeals being allowed in absolute terms.
2011 (5) TMI 770 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The appeal was dismissed under the Central Excise Act as the appellant failed to establish eligibility for CENVAT credit based on the High Court's ruling and absence of supporting evidence regarding the 'rent-a-cab' service. The stay application was also rejected due to the lack of conclusive evidence presented.
2011 (3) TMI 1100 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of claiming cenvat credit for service tax paid on outdoor catering services in a manufacturing premises, as it was deemed an eligible input service under the Rules. The decision was based on the understanding that such services indirectly contribute to the production process. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without legal issues and provided consequential relief to the appellant, upholding the legality of the decision.
2010 (11) TMI 224 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the denial of Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PVC pipes, argued that the services were mandatory under the Factory Act, 1948, and had a nexus with the manufacturing process. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal found a clear connection between the catering services and manufacturing, granting the credit. The case was remanded to the lower authority for determining if outdoor catering services were part of the cost of production, with instructions for the appellant to submit the Cost Accountant's certificate for review.
|
