Judgements by Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the matter in favour of the Appellant by allowing deduction of Cash discount from Transaction value.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi accepted the contentions of the Appellant and held that in the absence of any such dispute regarding availment of Impugned Services and their utilization for payment of Service tax or proper accounting of the same, the denia

The Hon’ble Apex Court after elaborate discussion of the various provisions and judicial pronouncements held as under: I). A plain reading of the judgment in the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Company and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others [2002

Even though the Board has attempted to reduce the litigation by issuing clarification as to waiver of issuance of SCN and/ or conclusion of proceedings, however the moot question still remains as to when a case should be categorised by the Department

The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi overruled the decision of the pision Bench in Haldiram Case to upheld power of CESTAT to grant/ extend Stay of recovery of demand beyond 365 days from passing of Stay Order, where delay in disposal

The Hon’ble High Court held that the Exemption Notification is a conditional Notification and Section 5A(1A) of the Excise Act is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, payment of Service tax by job worker i.e. FMGIL and Cenvat credit availme

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai after affirming that fact that the Assessee has written letter to the Department for granting refund of the amount, held that where Assessee's appeal has been allowed with consequential relief, it is incumbent upon the Reve

The Hon’ble High Court held that the transaction could not be treated as “Deemed sale of goods” under Section 2(1)(zc)(vi) of DVAT Act.

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