9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 21 to 40 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) |
|
2019 (10) TMI 1305 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, in a judgment by Hon'ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), addressed three appeals concerning interest on differential duty paid due to price variation in contracts. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision against the appellant, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to overturn the orders, as the Supreme Court had clarified in the Steel Authority of India Limited case that interest on differential duty is payable from the date it was required to be paid until the actual payment date. Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed.
2019 (11) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court concluded that the respondent complied with statutory requirements and was entitled to abatement for non-production days. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the questions of law were answered in favor of the respondent and against the revenue.
2019 (9) TMI 1429 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal held that the use of gas for heating and boiling in the manufacturing process of 'laundry soaps' does not amount to the use of 'power' under the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, the Appellant was entitled to exemption from excise duty. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confirming the excise duty demand and penalties imposed on the Appellant and its officers, ruling that the penalties were unsustainable as the Appellant did not use 'power' as defined for excise duty purposes.
2019 (9) TMI 111 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order regarding the classification of goods and the prospective effect of Circular No.929/19/2010-EX. The judgment emphasizes the significance of consistent classification and the interpretation of circulars in accordance with established legal principles, as evidenced by the analysis of relevant case laws by the Commissioner.
2019 (4) TMI 1696 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalty for the Financial Year 2010-11 in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal determined that no service tax liability arose for machines supplied to the Appellant's own unit and for supplying a machine to a third party, as possession and control were effectively transferred to the recipients, exempting the activities from taxable services. The interpretation of the "Supply of Tangible Goods" definition and the specific circumstances of the transactions led to the ruling in favor of the Appellant.
2019 (7) TMI 1016 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Lower Authorities, dismissing the appeal regarding a refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's application was deemed time-barred as it was filed after the prescribed deadline of 13.11.2016. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in tax matters, emphasizing the consequences of missing such deadlines. It serves as a reminder for taxpayers to comply with procedural requirements to ensure the validity of refund claims and maintain consistency in the application of legal principles within the taxation framework.
2019 (11) TMI 1257 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-director under Rule 26, overturning the penalties confirmed by the Revenue authorities. The discrepancies in stock were attributed to staff negligence rather than clandestine removal, leading to the deletion of duty on deemed production and the removal of the penalty on the director. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine activity.
2019 (3) TMI 1793 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for failing to pay the revised duty rate on 'Paint Brush'. The appellant acknowledged the duty liability, paid the duty with interest, and argued ignorance of the duty rate changes. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant's actions did not show any intention to evade duty, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent. Consequently, the penalty was revoked while confirming the duty demand and interest payment in favor of the appellant.
2019 (4) TMI 887 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal rectified a typographical error in a Final Order, changing the decision to reject the appeals filed by the Revenue instead of allowing them.
2019 (6) TMI 722 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that the "cream mix" used in the production of exempted biscuits was not marketable and therefore not excisable. The impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. The judgment was delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, disposing of the appeals stemming from the same impugned order. The absence of the appellant was noted, with the authorized representative for the respondents present during the proceedings.
2018 (12) TMI 363 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of catalyst and refractory insulators, in a dispute over the denial of cenvat credit based on invoices under a different entity's name. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit was unjustified both factually and legally, emphasizing the proper utilization of duty paid inputs by the appellant. The judgment stressed the importance of fair hearings and factual verification before disentitling a manufacturer from cenvat credit, leading to the setting aside of the denial and penalties imposed, providing relief to the appellants.
2018 (9) TMI 1492 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the demand based on documents from the Income Tax Department as it lacked corroborative evidence from the Central Excise Department. The Monthly Dispatch Summary Details (MDSD) were deemed unreliable and forged, leading to the dismissal of the demand associated with them. The demand based on parallel invoices was also rejected due to the lack of witness cross-examination and unaccounted goods. The absence of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal and unreliable witness statements further weakened the Department's case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and penalties on the appellants were also revoked.
2018 (9) TMI 983 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the availing of S.S.I. Exemption for goods endorsed with customers' brand names was impermissible. The show cause notice invoking the extended period was found valid, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions despite past interpretations. The Tribunal overruled previous decisions, stating that the small-scale exemption is not applicable if goods bear customers' brand names. Penalties were deemed unjustified due to the appellant's genuine belief in compliance, leading to their dismissal. The case was remanded for re-quantification within the limitation period, with penalties set aside.
2018 (9) TMI 563 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The tribunal rejected the appellant's refund claims for service tax paid on a reverse charge basis, citing the one-year limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Despite the appellant's argument based on a Bombay High Court decision, the tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory time limits for Revenue Authorities, ultimately ruling the claims as barred by limitation and rejecting the appeal.
2018 (8) TMI 551 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the appellant for irregular record-keeping and lack of proper accounting, despite the appellant clearing the confiscated goods by paying duty. The decision emphasized the strict obligation of manufacturers to maintain accurate records, holding the appellant responsible for unaccounted goods. The Tribunal found the questions raised to be factual rather than legal, ultimately dismissing the appeal and restoring the original order with a reduction in the redemption fine.
2018 (9) TMI 1374 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the appellant's liability for suppressing the value of Security Agency Services but set aside the demand and penalty for misclassification of services as Manpower Supply. The appeal was partially allowed, confirming accepted liability and penalty while rejecting the demand for services before 16.06.2005.
2018 (9) TMI 1274 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the applicability of service tax on transportation charges. The Tribunal determined that payments made to individual laborers without consignment notes did not constitute Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, thus overturning the demand for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed, and relief was granted in accordance with the law.
2018 (9) TMI 14 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the classification of 'Chocolate' products. The authorities had classified the goods as 'White Chocolate,' leading to the denial of benefits under specific Notifications. However, a test report revealed that the goods did not meet the criteria for white chocolate classification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders denying benefits, allowing the appeals of the appellants and confirming that the goods should be classified as Sugar Confectionary, entitling them to the concessional rate of duty as per the Notifications.
2018 (8) TMI 415 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD allowed the appellant's appeal in a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) case. The Tribunal ordered the refund of the pre-deposited amount, setting aside the Order-in-Original and granting consequential relief. The Misc. Application was disposed of accordingly.
2018 (8) TMI 161 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld a penalty of ?20 lakhs on the appellant, a former director of a manufacturing company, for alleged evasion of duty through clandestine removal of goods. Despite the appellant's argument that Rule 26 could not be invoked without a confiscation proposal or order, the Tribunal found his involvement in the illicit activities established his liability. The appellant's resignation post the period of alleged activities did not absolve him of responsibility, as his knowledge and participation in the unlawful actions justified the penalty imposition. The judgment highlights the director's accountability in such situations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
