|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1340 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Condonation of Delay – Tribunal by impugned order refused to condone delay of 217 days in filing of appeal – Held that:- Admittedly matter was remanded back to Assessing officer by order of commissioner – Apparently appellant was satisfied with order of commissioner but when proceedings were pending before original adjudicating authority, appeal was preferred before Tribunal on second thought – Apparent that Revenue has not challenged order of Commissioner (Appeals) and has accepted direction – Keeping in view aforesaid facts, court not inclined to entertain appeal – Decided against Appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1339 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Even today, no one has put in appearance, despite the case having been called twice. 3. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1338 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e made to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P Metals 2001 124 STC 611 (SC); 2002 1 SCC 279. In view of the submissions made, even while dismissing the sales tax revision it is clarified that the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board passed on June 7, 2007 upholding the order dated May 27, 2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. 2008 18 VST 436 (SC); 2009 1 SCC 308. However, from the facts on record Form No. ST-18A bearing No. 6718/16 having been supplied by the respondent-assessee along with reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent-assessee is held not liable to pay any penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P Metals 2001 124 STC 611 (SC); 2002 1 SCC 279.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Governor and the State Government Authorities have powers in relation to review under the provisions of Rules 31 and 32 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962?
-
2013 (10) TMI 1336 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
the penalty could be imposed when the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct - the petitioner submitted his return and thereafter assessment was made.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1335 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Whether the learned Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in deleting the interest under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?
Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest liability can be calculated from the date the tax is determined or quantified and not from the date from which the tax became due.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1334 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e or purchase in a/c books; no proof of unrecorded purchases or sales having been brought on record, we see no justification for rejection of books of the assessee. In view thereof, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we uphold the book results and G.P. disclosed by the assessee being satisfactory no addition is called for. The rejection of books by lower authorities is only on surmises and not supported by any cogent or objective reasons. Consequently, we delete the additions in respect of rejection of books, estimation of sales/ purchases and consequent estimation of GP in the result assessee's ground in this respect succeeds. Revenue's grounds in this respect fail. 17.8. The charging of interest u/s 234B is consequential. 18. To sum up, assessee's appeal for A.Y. 1994-95 is allowed and for A.Y. 1996-97 is partly allowed. Revenue's appeals for both the assessment years in question are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 18-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1333 - SC ORDER
Refund of Modavat credit - Modavat claim disallowed - Bar of limitation - High Court held that during the pendency of claim for Modvat allowance itself was under consideration wherein the authority had jurisdiction to pass appropriate order with respect to the entitlement of Modvat benefit to the assessee, then in that situation, the assessee could not have moved any application for refund of the said amount which would have been in air.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1332 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
“Whether Rajasthan Tax Board was legally justified in not classifying the 'sun-glasses' under Entry 125 of Schedule IV of Part A as 'Spectacles, parts & components thereof, contact lens and lens cleaner' taxable @ 4% but classifying under the residuary clause under Schedule V @ 12.5%?” - General meaning/understanding of the goods in the trade parlance is an important basis for classification purpose
-
2013 (10) TMI 1331 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ods are classifiable under Chapter 35 of the Tariff. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) 2008 (9) S.T.R. 113 (S.C.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mistake apparent on record means a mistake visible or capable of being seen, obvious plain. We find that the appellant imported goods by classifying under Chapter 39 of Customs Tariff Act and the same are cleared as such by affixing label indicates the same as Solvent Free Adhesive. The other item Castor Oil is purchased and the same is classifiable under Chapter 15 of the Tariff. The same is also cleared as such by putting a label describing as “Solvent Free Hardener”. The issue before the Bench was whether this activity amounts to manufacture or not. 5. In view of the above we find there is no mistake apparent on record. 6. Application is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1330 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nfirmed for the period from February, 2008 to May, 2009. The applicant has been classifying the said product since 1995 under Chapter Sub-Heading 5911 90 90 and the classification list has been accepted by the Department. Now the Department proposed to classify it under new Tariff Heading 3926 90 99 of CETA, 1985. Prima facie, going through the demand notices and the impugned order, we do not find any plausible reason in changing the long standing classification of the goods in absence of substantial change in the relevant tariff entry or in the process of manufacture of the goods. We also do not find any prima facie merit in the claim that the impugned product is classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 3926 90 99 of CETA, 1985. In these circumstances, we find a strong case on merit in favour of applicant. Accordingly, pre-deposit of the duty confirmed is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. SPs allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1329 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... onfirmed. Redemption fine and penalty are dropped. Appeal is disposed of in the above term.” In view of the above legal and factual position, I find that confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified and consequential imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the said Customs Act, is also not correct. 25. Accordingly, enhanced value accepted by appellant is confirmed but, 1 set aside the confiscation under Section 111(d)/111(m) of CA, 1962 and consequent imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of CA, 1962. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) is attracted only when the goods are liable to confiscation. As discussed above, since confiscation of goods and consequent fine have been set aside, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is also not sustainable and is set aside. 26. The appeals are allowed, with consequential relief, if any, on the above terms.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1328 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Whether the supplies made by the agents of the petitioner to the foreign going vessel are sales and are eligible to tax under the A.P. VAT Act in the hands of the petitioner and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim input VAT credit,
-
2013 (10) TMI 1327 - ITAT CHENNAI
Penalty under 271D and 271E - accepting of loans and repayment of loans in cash have resulted in violation of the provisions of law stated in Sections 269SS and 269T - CIT(A) deleted the penalties levied under Section 271D - Held that:- In the present case, all the transactions have been duly recorded in the books of the creditor as well as in the books of the assessees. The loans accepted by the assessees have been merged in the business finance of the assessees reflecting in their books of account. The funds required for repayment of loans were also generated out of the business as reflected in their books of account. The details of the parties are available on record.
The assessees as well as lenders are all regularly assessed to income-tax. The identity of the parties are beyond doubt. The factum of loan and repayments are beyond doubt. The genuineness of the transactions is also not in doubt. It is also established by the assessees that there existed similar emergency for repaying the loan in cash, as the emergency which prompted them to take loans in cash. Therefore, this is a case where there is a reasonable cause for the assessees to repay the loans in cash. In such circumstances, it is to be seen that the violation of Section 269T is technical. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought have deleted the penalties levied under Section 271E, when in fact, for good reasons, he was deleting the penalties levied under Section 271D. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1326 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commercial expediency in giving interest free loans to M/s HMGB which was a joint venture company of the assessee with Hindustan Antibiotics Limited - Held that:- CIT (A) and the Tribunal had concluded that there was commercial expediency in giving interest free loan to HMGB and the deduction was admissible under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act.
There is sufficient material to show that the relationship of the assessee with its subsidiary, HMGB was based on commercial expediency and the advancing of the amount was for business purpose. In this regard, we may make a reference to the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2004-05 which is also subject mater of appeal before us. The CIT(A) has tabulated the price advantage to the assessee on purchases made from HMGB, an uncontroverted fact, which clearly indicates commercial prudence apart from ensuring continuous and timely supplies. Thus, on the grounds of consistency and commercial expediency, the deduction claimed by the assessee company is in accordance with law and the CIT) (A) correctly allowed the claim of the assessee.
In view of the findings of fact recorded by CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there existed commercial expediency in giving interest free loan to HMGB, which findings are not shown to be against the record, no advantage can be derived by the revenue from the pronouncement reported in Abhishek Industries Limited's case (2006 (8) TMI 123 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court). In so far as Motor General Finance Limited [2001 (12) TMI 62 - DELHI High Court] and Indian Shavings Products Limited's cases (2003 (3) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN High Court ) are concerned, these pronouncements were prior to judgment of the Apex Court in S.A.Builders's case (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ). Further, on factual matrix therein, no commercial expediency was shown to be existing and therefore, in view of distinguishable circumstances involved, these do not advance the case of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Commercial Training or Coaching service - Held that:- Prima facie discern no nexus between the grants/donations to the petitioner either from M/s. MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. or from Govt. Departments and medical professionals, who are provided the specialised diabetes management training who are the recipients of the commercial training or coaching service, provided by the petitioner. In the absence of such nexus, the inference in the adjudication order that the donations must be included in the gross taxable value for taxable services provided by the petitioner, is prima facie unsustainable, in view of the Board Circular dated 16-8-2010 - strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and grant waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order, pending disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1324 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 78 - services of Architect - Held that:- The appellant is a registered ‘Architect’ with the Indian Council of Architecture under the Architects Act, 1972. These facts are not in dispute. The appellant is also associated with the Civil Contractor who are undertaking various civil contracts of the Government. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that he has only undertaken the services in the form of liaison work and back office services that were rendered to the contractors. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the impugned demand with regard to the duty and interest. - However, penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1323 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Commercial Training and Coaching Centre Services - whether service tax is payable on consideration received for training provided to employees of concerns/companies who had purchased the software developed and sold by the appellant - Held that:- There is no dispute w.e.f. 16-5-2008 and, the appellant herein, is paying service tax under the entry relating to “information technology software service” - in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant will also have to deposit ₹ 53,25,568/- towards penalty. It is pointed out that the interest is payable @18% - quantum involved and the fact that penalty is equal to the amount of tax, we are inclined to modify the order passed by the Tribunal and direct complete waiver of payment of interest and penalty. The directions to deposit the entire principal tax amount is partly modified with a direction to the appellant to deposit ₹ 40,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. We refrain from giving detailed reasons, but record that the issues raised do merit consideration. The plea of the appellant is that they had supplied and were paid consideration for the software sold. The appellant it is stated was not a commercial training or coaching institute but had developed and had sold software and as a term also trained the employees. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1322 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Goods Transport Agency - Validity of Show Cause Notice - Held that:- Section 71A of the Finance Bill, 2003 received the President assent on 14-5-2003 and accordingly for utilising the services, the service recipients have to file the return in respect of service tax for the respective period and service specified therein to the Central Excise Officer within six months from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 received the assent of the President viz., on 14-5-2003. Therefore, the last date for filing the return for the assessees for utilising the Goods Transport Operators viz., the service recipients under Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 falls on 12-11-2003. - As per the Finance Act, 2004, Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act was amended with effect from 10-9-2004 validating the notice issued to Goods Transport Operators Service recipients by removing the clause “the persons liable to file the returns under Section 70” from erstwhile Section 73 of the Finance Act. - very initiation of proceedings by issuance of show cause notice is bad in law. Accordingly, the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified. There is no ground to interfere with the order. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1321 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Denial of refund claim - Coercive recovery of service tax - Held that:- As such during the pendency of the stay application, respondent No. 2 recovered an amount of ₹ 1,49,92,754/- from the other 9 sanctioned rebate claims of exports of the petitioner and adjusted towards the dues under the OIO. It is required to be noted that as such the petitioner submitted appeals within statutory period of limitation along with stay applications. However, stay applications could not be heard by the learned CESTAT at the earliest. It is not the case on behalf of the respondent that as such there was any deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the stay applications decided. It is also not the case on behalf of the respondent that the delay in deciding the stay application is attributable to the petitioner. - If the respondent No. 2 would have waited till the stay applications are decided such an eventuality may not have taken place. Be that it may now in view of the disposal of the stay applications subsequently, petitioner is entitled to refund of ₹ 1,39,92,754/- which the respondent No. 2 has recovered by way of adjusting the same from the other 9 sanctioned rebate claims of exports of the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
