|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 381 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 187 - SC ORDER
Reversal of cenvat credit - waste, refuse or bye-product - Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004/2002 and Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Remission of duty in terms of rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules.
-
2012 (1) TMI 186 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... assessee, we notice that the assessee has made deposits in round sums on various dates ranging from ₹ 5,000/- to ₹ 90,000/-. Though the sister of the assessee has filed confirmation letter by stating that she has agreed to sponsor the educational expenses of the assessee’s daughter, she has not given the details of amount actually remitted by her in this regard, in the absence of which the said letter loses its credibility. The reason given for routing the said payment through another brother of the assessee is also not convincing. The explanation of the assessee that his brother had taken money from him on earlier occasions is also not supported with any evidence. In these circumstances, in our view also, the explanations offered by the assessee are not convincing. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld CIT(A) on this issue also. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 6.1.12
-
2012 (1) TMI 185 - SC ORDER
Additions under section 68 - assessee obtained 25 advance licenses from DGFT under DEEC scheme for duty free imports, has grossly over invoiced export of CD ROMs to show its export obligations as having been fulfilled. It was alleged in the aforesaid report that the assessee had partly sold a few of these licenses to various importers for duty free imports - ITAT confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting additions.
-
2012 (1) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the offences registered against the detenu way back in the year 1980 upto the last offence registered on August 14, 2010 have been noted by the detaining authority in reaching at the satisfaction that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he was dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 (b-1) of the 1981 Act?
Whether the order of detention dated January 10, 2011 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside?
-
2012 (1) TMI 183 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... yer of sea food. The LC for payment by the foreign buyer is opened in the name of the appellant. On the advice of the appellant, the sale proceeds of sea food for the Indian exporter stands paid. Under these circumstances, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant has received the commission for the services rendered by them in foreign exchange only. Further, in their own case for the earlier period, the Tribunal has waived pre-deposit of dues and we are not inclined to take a different view at this stage. The decision in the case of Manglam Yarn Agencies vs. CCE, Jaipur-II relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) is on the appreciation of facts in the said case, where it has been clearly held that the payment has been received in Indian currency from Nepal. 5. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeals. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 182 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of three months and five days in preferring the appeal - dispute is relating to the valuation of physician samples of medicaments - Held that: - there was neither any fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, that can be attributed to the respondent, for invoking larger period of limitation - there being no mala fide attributed to the appellant on the ground of extended period of limitation as well as penalty, no error could be seen in the order of the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the present Tax Appeal concerns the ex-parte order passed by the competent authority ordering such suspension of the licence. However, subsequently after hearing the respondent also, further order came to be passed confirming the order of suspension. This further order was challenged separately by the respondent before the Tribunal. Such Tax Appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal. Against the said order of the Tribunal, revenue has preferred separate Tax Appeal No. 959 of 2011. Since the present Tax Appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, raising the question of legality of ex parte suspension order and since subsequently, after by-parte hearing suspension was ordered to be continued, the initial order having merged in the subsequent order, we are not required to entertain this Tax Appeal, particularly when the Department has preferred independent appeal, which is pending. This Tax Appeal is, therefore, disposed of.
-
2012 (1) TMI 180 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s beyond clarification of the direction already given. The same is not, thus, liable to be quashed on the ground that it is beyond the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to clarify its direction. The subsequent direction is not on a fresh cause of action nor by way of fresh adjudication. 19. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in Writ Appeal Nos.394/2010 and 395/2010 and in the stand of the Revenue that the judgments of this Court are rendered inexecutable. It is, however, made clear that the Finance Act, 2011 will be fully applicable and the parties will act in accordance with the terms and conditions for exemption as modified by the said Act. The Revenue may, now, deal with the matter in accordance with the judgments of this Court by applying the amendment to the exemption notifications vide Finance Act, 2011. The matter may be finalised within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. The Misc. Case and the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (1) TMI 179 - SC ORDER
Classification of coconut oil packed in containers and pouches - Appellants is repacking the goods of brand "New Nihar Naturals" declared to be edible grade coconut oil received from HLL into small retail packets - Classification under chapter sub-heading No. 33 or under Chapter No.15.
-
2012 (1) TMI 178 - SC ORDER
Revoking of central excise registration - not engaged in manufacturing activity - involved in slitting of jumbo aluminium foils into blister form rolls of the required sizes and thereafter printing them in multi colour.
-
2012 (1) TMI 177 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd rejected the Revenue's case that such education cess was required to be paid once again. To our mind, such decision of the Tribunal would certainly be covered under the expression “the order determining a question having relation to the rate of duty of excise”. If the Department is correct in its stand, the manufacturers would have to pay excise duty at a rate higher than what they have been paying. In other words, computation of excise duty would have to include component of education cess. On the other hand, if the manufacturers are correct in their stand, such education cess would be excluded. In any case, it would have a direct bearing on the rate at which manufacturers should pay the excise duty on their clearances in the DTA from EOU Units. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondents' preliminary objection is required to be upheld.” In the result, this Tax Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 176 - SC ORDER
By product versus waste - Whether the fatty acids/soap stock, waxes and gums obtained in course of refining of the vegetable oils are eligible for duty exemption under the Notification No. 89/95-C.E - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus AG FLATS LTD. [2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] referred - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 174 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... recovery, we are of the view that imposing such an onerous condition certainly is prejudicial and it will cause undue hardship to the appellant. In order to avoid undue hardship to the appellant, the impugned order of the Tribunal, in respect of the direction issued for pre-deposit in the waiver applications filed by the appellant should be modified. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified to the effect that the appellant shall deposit a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs only towards duty, within eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the balance duty and penalties imposed on the company shall stand waived and the recovery thereof is stayed pending appeal. It is also further made clear that on making such deposit, the Tribunal shall take up the appeal to its file and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 173 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... 010 order dated 11-02-2011. A similar view was also taken by the Gujarat High Court also in the case of Khandubhai Vasanji Desai & Ors vs DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 73 (Guj). The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in Assist.Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Cicy P Thomas in ITSS No.32/Coch/2007 and CO No.37/coch/2007 order dated 22-12-2011. 7. In view of the above, in our opinion, the block assessment order passed against the assessee u/s 158BD is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the same is quashed.” 6. In consistent with the view taken in the above cited case, we hold that the block assessment order passed in the hands of the assessee u/s. 158BD is time barred by limitation. Accordingly, we quash the same. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee, we do not fit it necessary to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 6.1.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 172 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o discuss the matter with his client. He says that he has instructions from his client to pursue this appeal notwithstanding the fact that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. 3. We accordingly dismiss this appeal, but in view of the attitude of the appellant in this matter, we impose costs of ₹ 5,000/- to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks. 4. List for compliance on 23-2-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 171 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... here is no requirement of filing any cross objections. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly agrees that the Cross objections filed by the Revenue are in nature of written submissions as such COD filed by them was not required. He accordingly disposes of COD as infructuous. Stay petition is allowed in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 170 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Capital gain - Whether the provision of Section 53-A of the TPA has any applicability on the facts of the present case? - specific performance of agreement to sell dated July 22nd, 2008 executed by Sangeeta-defendant No.1 through her attorney Sharanjit Singh Sodhi in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint - Held that:- Proviso to Section 49 of the Act makes the things more clear. It envisages that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the TPA to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. A conjoint reading of Section 17(2)(v) and proviso to section 49 of the Act leaves no room for doubt that an agreement to sell property itself does not create any right, title to the property. It is the sale-deed which when executed will create right, title and interest in the property. Hence, an agreement to sell is not required to be registered and the same is receivable in evidence in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
This Court would like to observe that the application itself is not maintainable as the same does not disclose any of the situations mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The question as to whether the agreement to sell in question being unregistered was receivable in evidence was required to be adjudicated at the time of evidence as such, the application (Annexure P-3) was not maintainable.
-
2012 (1) TMI 169 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Deputy Commissioner only because of receipt of crime file from the intelligence officer which discloses evasion of tax and consequent levy of penalty on the petitioner which was not known to the assessing officer at the time of completion of original assessment. So much so, in our view, even if opportunity was availed of by the petitioner, the petitioner could not have denied the penalty proceedings against him revealed by the crime file and the Deputy Commissioner’s order could not have been any different than what he has passed, i.e., directing the officer to consider turnover escapement, if any, and to assess the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, the effective opportunity against reassessment before assessing officer is still available to the petitioner. So much so, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal’s order confirming the Deputy Commissioner’s order. S. T. Revision case is consequently dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... se of C.I.T. vs. Goodyear India Ltd. 249 ITR 527. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. 10. We find that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. C.I.T. & Ors. 280 ITR 643 had held that “assessee was entitled to compensation by way of interest under section 214 and section 244 for the delay in payment interest u/s 214 and 244 lawfully due to the assessee which were withheld wrongly and contrary to law by the department for inordinate long period.” In our considered opinion, the ratio from this case law is rightly applicable on the facts of the case. The above said CBDT instruction No. 2-2007, dated 28.3.2007 is also germane in this regard. Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of interest and accordingly the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/1/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 167 - ITAT KOLKATA
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds on payment for hiring of lorry/trucks and labour - contractual relationship - Held that:- In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of United Rice Land Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ), the provisions of section 194C were not applicable. It is not disputed that the assessee had not assigned any of its contractual obligations to the transporters. It was a mere case of hiring the trucks from the market as per the requirements and not as per any contract. Appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
............
|
