Judgements by Bimal Jain

In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT disposed off the Stay Application filed by Punjab Chemicals & Corp Protection Ltd. (“the Appellant”) and stayed the entire demand of Service tax amounting to Rs. 35,14,534/-. However, the Appellant was directed

The Exemption Notification exempted goods falling under Heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and consequently, duty payable was 40%. However, proviso to the Exemption Notification gives exemption of duty of 10% to the manufacturer of

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal in favour of the Revenue by setting aside the decision the Hon’ble Tribunal and held that Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment will be applicable in case of refund of duty paid on Capital goods, which are used ca

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras upheld the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal and held that since amendment to the Service Tax Rules have come into effect on August 16, 2002 and it is only by way of amendment the liability of service recipient to pay Ser

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana made elaborate discussion in this regard and held as under: - The State Governments draws their power to impose Sales Tax/ VAT on sale or purchase of goods, other than newspapers, from Entry No.54 of

The matter raised before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the instant case is that whether components of a composite transaction amounting to supply of labour/ rendition of service(s), under a Works Contract ought to be classified onl

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004 (7) TMI 98] which was based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wi

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, relying on the decision in the Meghmani Dyes case, held that if prescribed Returns are filed by Assessee giving correct information, then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the instant case also, prescr

The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide a non-speaking Order dated February 26, 2013 (“Impugned Order”) ordered pre-deposit of 40% of the demand under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratory case held that under Section 11BB of the Excise Act, there is no provision that relevant date for determining the rate of interest will be postponed in any eventuality.