9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 41 to 60 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) |
|
2018 (7) TMI 1278 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal confirmed duty liability against the proprietor of M/s Taj Products for clandestine manufacture of Pan Masala, starting from January 2011 instead of April 2010 based on evidence presented, despite Rule 17(2) provisions. Penalty was imposed on the manufacturer, while the brand owner was exempted due to lack of involvement evidence. The case was remanded for quantification of duty liability and penalty imposition based on the actual manufacturing period.
2018 (7) TMI 995 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims for interest amounts in a case involving duty liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme for Pan Masala and Chewing Tobacco. Despite the law declared by the Tribunal for the appellant's Delhi Unit, the refund claims were deemed time-barred as they exceeded the statutory limitation period under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of complying with statutory provisions and limitations, affirming the Lower Authorities' decision to reject the appeals.
2018 (7) TMI 423 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the manufacture of Glass Beads exempted from excise duty. The issue revolved around the duty liability on Glass Tubes, a by-product of the manufacturing process. The Revenue alleged duty liability on Glass Tubes not manufactured by the exempted process, leading to a duty demand. However, evidence presented supported the appellants' claim of using the exempted Mouth Blowing process before the purchase of a compressor. The Tribunal upheld the SSI exemption claim, set aside penalties, and remanded the matter for further verification, ultimately disposing of both appeals in favor of the appellants.
2018 (6) TMI 1527 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the sale of space by a Municipal Corporation for advertisement and charging legal fees for providing taxable services under "space or time selling service" are not liable to service tax. The decision was based on precedents from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and a Tribunal decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
2018 (8) TMI 8 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the concessional rate of duty for Adhesive Tape under Tariff Item No. 30051020. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting sustainable arguments and establishing the unsustainability of previous findings when challenging a decision. It highlighted the need for thorough legal analysis and adherence to procedural requirements in appellate proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder of the burden on the appealing party to demonstrate the inadequacy of prior findings and the principles governing reconsideration of issues already adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority.
2018 (7) TMI 1770 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant as goods made of cotton without any other textile materials were held to attract a 4% duty benefit under Notification No. 29/2004-CE. The Tribunal relied on a precedent decision confirming the eligibility of the goods for the benefit, overturning the demand for Central Excise Duty and penalty imposed based on the contention of materials like Aluminum not covered under the benefit.
2018 (7) TMI 1769 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD allowed the remission application for goods destroyed in a fire accident, except for raw materials, emphasizing the importance of considering negligence in fire accidents for remission eligibility. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's finding of avoidable negligence, citing precedents supporting remission claims for loss of goods. The judgment highlighted the necessity of accidents being unavoidable for remission under Rule 21 of CER, 2002 and upheld the appellant's entitlement to remission for semi-finished and finished goods lost in the fire.
2018 (7) TMI 1206 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeals, as there was insufficient evidence beyond loose slips and statements to prove clandestine activities by the respondents. The burden of proof was on the revenue to establish clandestine removal with concrete evidence, which was lacking in this case. The judgment emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support such allegations, highlighting that mere suspicion or confessional statements without corroboration were inadequate to establish liability.
2018 (7) TMI 1048 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, confirming that the goods should not attract Central Excise duty under Chapter 3005. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of consistency in legal rulings and adherence to judicial precedents.
2018 (11) TMI 82 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund of service tax deposited by the respondent for the period before April 2006, along with interest within 75 days from the tribunal's order. The tribunal relied on a Bombay High Court judgment, stating that no service tax is leviable on a reverse charge basis for services received in India from service providers located outside India.
2018 (4) TMI 1937 - SC Order The Supreme Court of India referred the matter to a 3 Judges' Bench based on a previous order.
2018 (6) TMI 1338 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's findings, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the Authority's conclusions well-founded and supported by evidence analysis, determining the Revenue's failure to adequately contest these findings. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, granting the respondent appropriate relief in accordance with the law.
2018 (3) TMI 1705 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants partially and the directors fully, setting aside penalties under Section 11AC due to the absence of contumacious conduct. Despite the resemblance to job work transactions, the appellants failed to meet Notification requirements, making them liable for Excise duty. The authority found discrepancies in the appellants' procedures, leading to duty payment obligations. The appellants' claim of conducting job work was not fully accepted, but leniency was granted considering a bona fide mistake. Consequential benefits were awarded to the appellants and directors following a review of the contentions.
2018 (11) TMI 65 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing procedural fairness and the right to be heard in taxation matters. The appellant, a manufacturer of 'PARAS' brand products, exceeded the duty exemption limit, leading to duty levies. Allegations of wrongful duty exemption and discrepancies in declarations resulted in penalties. The Commissioner upheld the decision but set aside the penalty on the Director. The Tribunal found the appellant lacked adequate hearing opportunities, remanding the matter for re-adjudication with full disclosure and fair hearing rights.
2018 (6) TMI 306 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed M/s Raj Products' appeal regarding abatement claim under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The Tribunal found the Central Excise Commissioner's actions improper as the abatement issue was pending. The Commissioner's show cause notice was deemed invalid, and the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, upholding the Order-in-Appeal. M/s Raj Products were entitled to consequential relief as per the law.
2018 (3) TMI 921 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal regarding the case involving the manufacture and clearance of branded footwear, imposition of duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant's retraction of statements was deemed lacking credibility, with documentary evidence supporting the Revenue's allegations. The presence of incriminating slips and admissions by involved parties led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming duty recovery and penalty imposition. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD on 13/02/2018.
2018 (4) TMI 1391 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case concerning the interpretation and mandatory nature of conditions under notification no.9/99. The Court ruled that once an assessee opts for benefits under a specific notification, they cannot switch during the year. The assessee's attempt to change notifications after availing benefits was rejected, emphasizing the binding nature of the initial choice. The Court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the importance of complying with chosen notification conditions and affirming the Tribunal's decision under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2018 (4) TMI 101 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal remanded the case back to the original authority for reassessment of the credited amount regarding the reversal of attributable Cenvat credit for goods cleared at nil duty rate, directing compliance with the Supreme Court ruling in Chandrapur Magnet Wires case. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for further review and compliance.
2018 (3) TMI 827 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging an order demanding payment for exempted goods due to the lack of maintaining separate accounts under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings that the respondent had appropriately maintained separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. The Revenue's argument that the separate records were insufficient and an attempt to deceive the Department was rejected, emphasizing the importance of genuine correlation between inputs and finished goods to prevent undue benefits on exempted goods.
2018 (1) TMI 171 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The appellant's argument that they were not liable for service tax as they retained control of the cabs provided to GAIL was rejected by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority, and the tribunal. The court held that services related to renting a motor cab fall within the taxable service definition under the Finance Act, regardless of possession and control. The court emphasized that the distinction between renting and hiring in common usage does not affect the liability for service tax. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the revenue, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
|
