Judgements by Bimal Jain

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the matter of M/s. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD v C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I [Excise Appeal No. 10100 of 2020 dated June 24, 2022] has held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)

The AAAR, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of M/s Deputy Commissioner, CGST & C.EX. Division-2 [Order No- UP/AAAR/01/2022 dated May 23, 2022] upheld the AAR order and stated that Goods and Services Tax ("GST") shall not levied on extra packs of cigarette

The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of M/sYogender Yadav v Union of India [CRM-M-53014 OF 2021 dated February 15, 2022] granted relief to a Chartered Accountant and held that judicial incarceration may not be prolonged, as it would

The AAR, Karnataka in the matter of M/s. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board [Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 17/2022, dated July 01, 2022]has held that the Central and State Board are considered as educational institution for the purpose of

The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd.v.Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service t

The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank NA & Ors. [WPO 547 of 2019 dated June 24, 2022] held that interest component of Equated Monthly Instalments ("EMI") of the loan, through credit card services by a bank, attracts

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the matter of Ambica Engineering Works v. C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I [Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2020, dated June 7, 2022] set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cann

The AAAR, Maharashtra in Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry [Order No. MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/08/2022-23 dated June 23, 2022] has modified the order of the AAR, to the extent that, the activities performed by the Liaison Office ("LO") acting as link for

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Mr. Anil Dudalal Kaneria v. C.C.E.-Bharuch [Excise Appeal No.10079 of 2019] has held that a huge personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company who is not looking after the accounts of the goods manufacture

The Delhi, CESTAT in M/s Seher v. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi [Service Tax Appeal No. 52708 of 2016dated June 13, 2022] held that, service tax is not payable on reimbursement of expensesas the nature of service should make no difference to the