9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 61 to 80 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 (1) TMI 363 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The case involved a dispute regarding duty payment under a compounded levy scheme, Modvat credit, and cum duty benefit. The Tribunal's final order directed the adjustment of excess duty paid for subsequent months against the duty liability for the disputed period. Additionally, the order confirmed Modvat benefit and allowed cum duty benefit, but did not adjust excess payments in subsequent months. The judgment provided directions for recovery of duty liability and refund adjustment, partially allowing the appeal based on these directives.
2018 (3) TMI 912 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of branded Chewing Tobacco as manufactured tobacco based solely on the chemical examiner's opinion, emphasizing that the examiner's role is limited to analyzing samples and not determining classification under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority must apply the examiner's results to relevant laws for classification, criticizing the Original Authority for delegating adjudication power to the examiner. The cross objection was also disposed of during the proceedings.
2018 (2) TMI 695 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD, set aside the demand of excise duty and penalties imposed on the appellant for the classification of sugar syrup under Tariff Item 17029090. Relying on a previous decision that the sugar syrup was not marketable and therefore not excisable, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, emphasizing the importance of proper classification of goods for excise duty purposes and the impact of past precedents on similar cases. The judgment underscores the necessity of consistency and adherence to established legal principles in excise duty matters.
2018 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the classification of imported oil. They concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have relied on the first test report that had been set aside. The retest report confirming the absence of mineral oil justified the classification under heading 3402. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by restoring the Order-in-Original.
2018 (1) TMI 359 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the Mouth Blowing process was used before 01.04.2007, entitling them to exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE. The matter was remanded to verify the appellant's claim for Small Scale Industry (SSI) Exemption, and penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside. The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiated evidence in duty liability disputes and the necessity for thorough investigation before rejecting claims.
2018 (2) TMI 467 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in six appeals concerning the interpretation of Business Auxiliary Service and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST. Despite initial disagreement by the Revenue, the Tribunal determined that the services provided to Financial Institutions did not qualify as branded services, making the appellants eligible for the exemption. Consequently, all appeals were allowed through remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a reassessment of the Service Tax liability in accordance with the exemption notification.
2018 (1) TMI 960 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Customs Broker was penalized for involvement in clearing goods with fake documents, leading to suspension of license and imposition of a penalty of ?50,000. Despite no serious charges or revenue loss found, the penalty was imposed under Regulation 22. The employee's genuine efforts and lack of awareness by Directors were noted. As the goods later complied with regulations and no active involvement by the Broker was proven, the penalty was deemed unjustifiable. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
2018 (4) TMI 54 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondents, classifying finished goods under Chapter 49 instead of Chapter 48. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming that the goods were not dutiable and entitled the respondents to consequential benefits as per the law.
2018 (2) TMI 1554 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003-CE from 01/04/2004 as they had validly assigned Trade Marks for consideration. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and Show Cause Notices prior to 01/04/2004 were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants regarding the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was based on the analysis of the assignment of Trade Marks, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellants in all aspects of the case.
2018 (2) TMI 685 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the finding that the show cause notice lacked legal force as it did not invoke Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 for the service tax demand. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of correctly invoking relevant sections of the Finance Act and upheld the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that rules cannot impose liability on the service recipient when the Finance Act holds the service provider responsible for paying the tax.
2018 (5) TMI 1185 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal affirmed the entitlement to interest from the deposit date in a case involving a refund application for Central Excise Duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the refund with interest, which the Assistant Commissioner disbursed without interest citing a circular. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reinstated the interest, emphasizing the Department's failure to establish duty liability or issue a show cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the interest payment from the deposit date, concluding the present appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order as inconsequential.
2017 (11) TMI 894 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund claim. It was determined that the appellant met procedural requirements and provided sufficient evidence of export. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial benefits should not be denied due to procedural lapses and upheld the right to refund unutilized credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules.
2017 (12) TMI 1081 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal found that the allegations were based on presumptions without concrete evidence. It held that the retracted confessional statement could not be the sole basis for imposing a penalty, citing precedents. The appellant's contentions of genuine transactions were accepted, and the lack of specific instances or names regarding the alleged clandestine sale of pig iron was noted, leading to the reversal of the penalty decision.
2017 (11) TMI 874 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions to reduce redemption fines, drop duty demands, vacate confiscations, and set aside penalties. The respondents were granted consequential relief as per law.
2017 (10) TMI 1177 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders denying SSI exemption. It held that the appellant had complied with Rule 11(2) by depositing the Cenvat Credit amount and providing intimation, making the rejection of SSI exemption unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not result in denying substantive benefits and that the appellant had met the necessary conditions for availing full exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE.
2017 (11) TMI 691 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the levy of penalty and interest imposed under Rule 96-ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the financial year 1998-99. The appellant's argument, relying on a Supreme Court ruling, was accepted, leading to the conclusion that no demand for interest and penalty under Rule 96-ZO could be enforced. The appellant was granted consequential benefits by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.
2017 (9) TMI 1509 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal and directing the refund processing for the respondent within 45 days with applicable interest. The discrepancy in the description of imported goods and goods sold was deemed within acceptable tolerance limits set by the Bureau of Indian Standards, supporting the respondent's entitlement to the refund under Notification No. 102/2007 CUS.
2018 (1) TMI 682 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the classification of items by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Chapter 48 and Chapter 49 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Order-in-Appeal was confirmed. The respondents were granted consequential benefits as per the law.
2017 (9) TMI 2044 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, emphasizing the lack of evidence for clandestine removal, the questionable validity of Panch witnesses, and procedural lapses violating natural justice principles. The respondents were entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
2018 (2) TMI 65 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order in favor of the respondents regarding the classification of finished products manufactured on a job work basis for Sahara India Ltd. The Chief Commissioner's clarification that the products were classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901, falling under Chapter 49, was accepted. The Tribunal found the show-cause-notice basis for classifying the products under Chapter 48 to be invalid, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and granting consequential benefits to the respondents as per the law.
|
