Judgements by Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi held that neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order, it has been disputed that the Appellant has not availed input service and has not paid Service tax. Hence, the Appellant is entitled to take Cenvat cr

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay relying upon the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1958, SC 452] held that for levying tax, it was not necessary that the sale should take place within the territorial limits of the State. The

The Hon’ble High Court held that the State Government isn’t competent to levy tax on the basis of Maximum retail price or any other notional value and further held that the State Government can’t provide an option to the concerned dealer to pay VAT i

The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its own case in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Vs. M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. [2015(319) ELT 202] held that the services in terms of Technical Know-how Agreement has been provided post importation, an

The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi has upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that in a catena of decisions, the view has been expressed that when export of goods and payment of duty on exported goods is not in question, minor deviations from t

The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 438 – PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] dealing with reversal of amount under Section 6(3)(b) of the Credit Rules, held tha

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai has held that the courses provided by the Appellant were falling under the category of 'vocational training', which enables students to seek employment/self-employment and therefore, exempt from the levy of Service tax unde

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that if, upon a misconception of the legal position, the assessee had paid the tax that he was not liable to pay and such assessee also happens to be an assessee entitled to certain Cenvat credit, the availin

Amounts received by the Appellant were recorded as dealer's margin & the handling charges received by the Appellant from the customers were shown in the invoices as charges and VAT was paid thereon.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it cannot be the intention of the Legislature to provide rebate only on one item i.e. either on inputs or final products. It was further held that giving such restrictive meaning to Rule 18 of the Excise Rules would n