Supreme Court
Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -II v. M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 470
The Supreme Court recently held that pouches of chewing tobacco packed in High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags would be considered a 'wholesale package' and could not be considered for imposing excise duty as per the provisions relating to retail sale price in the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and permitted the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice, since the only allegation against the petitioner is that it was found to be non-existent.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Initiated By Customs Authorities For Seizing Jewellery
Case Title: Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India
The Bombay High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities for seizing the jewelry.
Case Title: M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
The Bombay High Court has directed the sales tax department to refund Rs. 10.70 crore.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Versus M/s.Himani Limited and Others.
The Telangana High Court has held that the 10% duty is leviable on Himani Navaratan Oil and Himani Gold Turmeric Ayurvedic Cream as they are classified as ayurvedic medicine and not cosmetics.
Kerala High Court
SAD Refunds Can't Be Denied For Taking Away Facility Of Re-Crediting DEPB Scrips: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary (Customs-III/VI)
The Kerala High Court has held that if the appellant/assessee satisfies the conditions in Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for the purposes of refund of the 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD), then merely because the facility of re-crediting the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrips has been taken away, the refund that the appellant is entitled to by virtue of the notification cannot be denied.
CESTAT
Refund Can't Be Denied On Ground That It Earlier Period: CESTAT
Case Title: Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the refund cannot be denied on the ground that the refund pertains to an earlier period.
Case Title: Shri Kamleshkumar K Kotecha Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that co-owners holding immovable property should be treated as independent service providers for the purpose of availing service tax exemption.
Cement Manufacturer Entitled To Cenvat Credit On Welding Electrodes: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited Versus
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cement manufacturers are entitled to cenvat credit on welding electrodes as inputs used in the manufacture of final products, namely cement and clinker.