Judgements by Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that pertaining to denial of refund claims on ground that Impugned services are not eligible for Cenvat credit, the matter stands decided in favour of the Appellant in its own case by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and is no

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka relying upon the decision in the case of GSP Infratech Development Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [2013-TIOL-399-HC-KAR-ST], held that the words "amount payable by a person" used in Section 87 of the Finance Ac

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not interfered with the factual aspects which were recorded by the Settlement Commission in its judgment. However, the High Court has stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commissio

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 19 of the Excise Rules permits export of the goods under bond/ Letter of Undertaking (LUT) without payment of duty, subject to following the procedure and conditions as may be prescribed. The Notification issu

The Hon’ble High Court directed the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to take up the appeal filed by the Petitioner for disposing the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the issues raised by the Appellants and answered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour has to be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits and there being no finding on the issues in the manner in

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was

The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the Order of the Hon’ble CESTAT and held that the Respondent was not entitled to deduction of freight etc., from factory to buyer's premises.

Accordingly, it was held that even though the Appellant received the payment in Indian Rupees but the same is deemed to be convertible foreign exchange and accordingly the condition as provided under Rule 3(ii) of the Export of Service Rules stand co

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is clear that by letter dated April 15, 2002, the original purchase order dated October 31, 2001 was novated insofar as price was concerned, which is before the date of removal of goods from the factory premises in