|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 537 Records
-
2004 (11) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fter impleading all such parties who have been granted relief by the competent authority. Civil Appeal Nos. 6342-43/2002, 6344-45/2002, 6347-48/2002, 6350-51/2002, 6353-54/2002, 8575/2002 & 4196/2003 19. In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 6341of 2002 (UPSRTC vs. State of U.P. & Anr), the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2002 of the High Court is set aside.. Civil Appeal No.5258 of 2003 20. The appellants were granted permits on 11.2.1991 after the High Court had held on 16.3.1990 that the Scheme had lapsed. In view of our finding that the Scheme had not lapsed, the appellants are not entitled for renewal of their permits. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Civil Appeal No ./2004 S.L.P. (Civil) No.21557/2002 and Civil Appeal No /2004 S.L.P.(Civil) No. 19034/2003 21. Leave granted. In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 6341 of 2002, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2002 of the High Court is set aside.
-
2004 (11) TMI 584 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... declaration form. It is not the case of the department that the driver of the vehicle tried to evade the inspection. o p /o p Facts and circumstances does not prove that there was any attempt to evade the tax, which is condition precedent for the seizure of the goods and for levy of penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. The presumption that the same form could be used for any other transaction is merely on surmises and based on no material. This court in the case of CST vs. M/s Oriental Carbon Limited, reported in 1985 UPTC, 613 held that the penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act cannot levied in the absence of an attempt to evade the payment of tax. This view has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of CST vs. M/s Oriental Carbon Limited, reported in 1997 NTN (Vol. 10) 105. o p /o p 5. For the reasons stated, order of Tribunal is set aside and the penalty is quashed. o p /o p 6. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal is quashed. o p /o p
-
2004 (11) TMI 583 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ter issuing the said policy under Notification dated 31.3.2002 coming into force with effect from 1.4.2002 considering the interest of business community the Government thought it fit to extend the benefit of DEPB in lieu of draw back for supply made to SEZ or unit in SEZ, therefore, the notification dated 5.6.2002 (Annexure C) was issued. But, it is pertinent to note that it is not stated in the said notification that the same will come into force with effect from any particular day. It was obviously for new financial year starting from 1.4.2003 and, therefore, the corresponding notifications were issued for receipt and acceptance of DEPB with effect from 1.4.2003. In that view of the matter by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the principle of issue estoppel would apply in this case in favour of the present petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 582 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ground of the Revenue is not tenable in view of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. Medico Labs & Another (2004 (64) RLT 641)wherein it has been observed that even after the amendment of Section 35 A(3) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and the same is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 581 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on in coming to a conclusion on the strength of decision of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.’s case (supra ) that it has to be and it is in fact a Revenue Receipt in the hands of assessee. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal. Instead we prefer to uphold the view taken by Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). We are also constrained to observe that Tribunal failed in their duty in properly deciding the appeal. The slip short manner in which the Tribunal disposed of the appeal cannot be countenanced. It is the legal duty of the Tribunal to deal with issue by narrating full facts and then discuss the issue in detail in the context of decided cases. The Tribunal being the last so far as facts are concerned, a higher responsibility is cast by the Legislature to decide the cases by assigning cogent reasons. 9. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion, we answer the question in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2004 (11) TMI 580 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rtment, therefore, it would not be appropriate to dismiss such writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 9. A Division Bench of this court in the case of R.P. Pandey v. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. 2004 (22) LCD 20 has taken the view that while considering as to whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy at the time of hearing or not one more aspect of the matter which require consideration is as to when the petition was filed what orders have been passed by the court and the period of pendency of the petition before the High Court. 10. We, therefore, do no find justification to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing an appeal and we see that no fruitful purpose would be served in extending the proceeding any further. 11. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 29-3-1985 passed by Chief Commissioner (Admn.), U.P. and Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, is set-aside and the writ petition is allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 579 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nd circumstances, we hold that the CIT was not justified in setting aside the order on this issue for examining afresh. Accordingly the directions of CIT in regard to re-examination of the receipt of ₹ 30.53 crore are quashed. 19. However, after examining the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT, we find that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in regard to foreign expenses claimed in profit & loss account incurred through its Head Office. Though a query was raised, however, neither there was any specific reply filed by assessee, nor any details of foreign expenses were brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. A general reply was filed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in regard to foreign expenses at all. Therefore, the direction of the CIT in regard to examination of the allowability of foreign expenses is sustained. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
-
2004 (11) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... bove appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31-7-1997 passed by the Assessing Officer. Since there is a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Bench, the following questions were referred to the Hon’ble IIIrd Member - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer had jurisdiction and justification in including the depreciation allowance in the computation of undisclosed income in the order under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether grounds of appeal Nos. II to IV raised by the assessee are required to be remitted to the Division Bench, for adjudication thereupon? The Hon’ble IIIrd Member, after hearing the same, has passed the order dated 30-9-2004 agreeing with the Hon’ble Accountant Member. Hence, as per the majority opinion, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 577 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... entioned service received for the period covered by the amendment where no action was initiated against them for such recovery during such period. 6. In the instant case, the demands of Service Tax were raised beyond 12-5-2000 in show cause notices dated 13-5-2002 and 14-2-2003. such demands are not affected by the amendments made to Section 65 by Parliament under Section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000 and consequently they are hit by the Apex Court’s ruling in Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra). Furthermore, undisputedly, the demands raised by the Department, in these cases, are for beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.” 4. Following the view taken in CCE, Chennai v. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Final Order Nos. 930 & 931/2004 2004 (117) ECR 670 (T) 2005 (179) E.L.T. 447 (Tribunal) ibid, I set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals, with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2004 (11) TMI 576 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... (172) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) JT 2004 (8) SC 53, we see no infirmity in the impugned orders. We thus see no reasons to interfere. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 575 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... we find no merit in these appeals and the cross appeal, which are dismissed. No costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 574 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... where no action was initiated against them for such recovery during such period. 6. In the instant case, the demands of Service Tax were raised beyond 12.5.2000 in show-cause notices dated 13.5.2002 and 14.2.2003. Such demands are not effected by the amendments made to Section 65 by Parliament under Section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000 and consequently they are hit by the Apex Court's ruling in Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra). Furthermore, undisputedly, the demands raised by the Department, in these cases, are far beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance, 1994." 6. Following the precedent, it is held that any demand of service tax on the respondents for the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 in show-cause notice issued on 27.6.2002 is not sustainable in law and hence there is no question of levy of interest on tax or of imposition of penalty on the assessee. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed and this appeal is rejected.
-
2004 (11) TMI 573 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... pointing out the correct facts and the factual mistakes committed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, if satisfied that its judgment proceeds on factually wrong premises, then it may correct the order applying the correct law based on the correct facts, so found by it. Subject to that observation, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 572 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner; and, until such announcement ismade, any bidder may retract his bid. There is nothing in the Central Sales Tax Act to indicate that a sale will be inter-State sale if Buyer after purchase of goods indicates to the seller that he wants to transport goods outside the State which is exactly what the petitioners have canvassed before the Forest Department, sales tax authorities and before this Court. It is beyond doubt that the transport of goods if any by the petitioners after purchase in auction sale is a separate and subsequent transaction and such transport cannot be said to be in any way related or connected with the auction sales held in Kerala. Therefore the contentions of the petitioners are unsustainable and Ext.P9 adjudication order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes produced in WPC 3153 of 2004 has to be upheld and I do so. Consequently the WPCs and OPs are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 571 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of removal from service by the Appellate Authority valid?
Whether the appellant will be entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his total period of service?
-
2004 (11) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o claim that the Company is bound to assign the property to him by virtue of the agreement for sale. It may be true that he has been in possession of 8.5 cents and the building therein. But his occupation is only permissive and he can continue in occupation till the licence to occupy is revoked. In the result W.A. Nos. 1165/2003 and 1232/2003 are dismissed. Similarly O.P.8845/2001 and W.P.(C). 27302/2003 are also dismissed. W.P. 26523/2003 is allowed. The sale conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal is set aside.. The revenue authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the property of the Company under the RR Act and on the strength of the first charge created over the property by virtue of S .26-B of the KGST Act. The auction purchaser shall be entitled to approach the Tribunal for refund of the purchase money deposited by him pursuant to the sale held by the Recovery Officer. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in all the above cases.
-
2004 (11) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as incorporated by Andhra Pradesh Act No. 17 of 1986, by amending the Central Act in its application to the State, as struck down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as also of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Whether disclosure of the contents of the documents by the Bank would amount to a breach of confidentiality and would, therefore, be violative of privacy rights of its customers?
-
2004 (11) TMI 568 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eal No. 4297 of 1999 by us today 2004 (174) E.L.T. 310 (S.C.) , these appeals are allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 567 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the product on which demand has been confirmed in the present case) is not a final product but waste. 2. Since the issue stands settled by the Tribunal’s order which in turn relied upon the decision on CCE, Meerut v. Titavi Sugar Complex reported in 2003 (54) RLT 859 (S.C.) and since it is also brought to the notice of the Bench by the learned Counsel that the Revenue’s appeal against such view in the case of CCE, Meerut v. M/s. Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. has been dismissed as seem from the order of the Supreme Court dated 20-2-2004, in Civil Appeal No. D 2777628/2003, we dispose of the appeal itself at this stage, by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
2004 (11) TMI 566 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... (CC. 6249). Leave granted in the special leave petitions. Learned counsel for the parties concede that the question arising for decision in these appeals is covered and decided by the decision of this Court in Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, (2004) 4 SCC 787. The appeals be treated as disposed of in terms of the above said decision.
........
|
