|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 715
... ...
... ... ..... is clearly evident that since the authorities were fully aware of the nature of the activity from similarly placed persons as early as in January, 1998, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be issued in 2003. 28. Hence the entire proceedings are clearly hit by limitation as the proceedings have been initiated beyond the normal period of limitation without any justification as the nature of the activity had already been taken note of the department in January/February, 1998, and the entire period of demand being only thereafter namely since 1999-2000. 29. Once the proceedings are without jurisdiction, the penal action would also not survive both on merits and also on account of limitation. 30. I conclude by holding that the activity of the Appellant would correctly come only under the purview of Business Auxiliary Service and not as an Advertising Agency. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and Appeal allowed. 31. Appeal allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 714
... ...
... ... ..... s an he fell into pray only in the night of 24-9-2003. The detaining authority has also satisfied that the seized 150 numbers of Intel Pentium 4 computer processors not constituting a bona fide baggage have been brought into India in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act thereby liable for confiscation for having been smuggled in India. We also satisfied that the respondents complied with all the other formalities and afforded adequate opportunities to the detenu to putforth his case. We are satisfied that after considering his voluntary statement and all other materials, and also taking note of the fact that the detenu being a responsible officer of the Air India, Chennai International Airport and with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future passed the impugned order of detention. There is no ground for interference. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. H.C.M.P.No. 52 of 2004 is also dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 713
... ...
... ... ..... judicating authority has decided the issue even without the reply to the show cause notice from the appellant. He stated that inspite of two reminders calling for reply to the show cause notice and fixing the date of personal hearing the appellant have neither cared to reply nor appeared for personal hearing. The adjudicating authority has not at all given a finding as to whether the services rendered by the appellant would fall within the purview of Consulting Engineer Services. On this count, alone the Order-in-Original is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise there is merit in the contention of the appellant that sale of technology would not be covered within the ambit of Engineering Services and it would be more appropriated to classify the same under Intellectual property services, which was not liable to service tax during the relevant period. Under these circumstances the Order-in-Original is liable to be set aside. ORDER I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2004 (8) TMI 712
... ...
... ... ..... se for consideration before the High Court. The substantial question of law formulated by the High Court at the time of admitting the appeal, in our view, again touches the appreciation of evidence in relation to Exhibits A2 to A4. We do not think it necessary to record detailed reasons again as we agree with the reasons recorded by the First Appellate Court in rejecting the case of the plaintiff having regard to Exhibits A2 to A4 and the other documentary and oral evidence. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. No costs. The learned senior counsel for the respondents states that the respondents may approach the State Government to seek some portion of land to use it as a way to have access to the National Highway. It is open to the respondents to do so and the State Government may, entirely in its discretion on its terms, consider it if permissible in law, but, without affecting any public purpose and in case the respondents have no other access.
-
2004 (8) TMI 711
... ...
... ... ..... e 20 limit. We reiterate for the sake of cleanly that the condition under section 80-I(2)(i) applies to the formation of the industrial undertaking and the mere transfer of old machinery not having effected the formation of the industrial undertaking is satisfied in this case. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, mere transfer of old machinery is not enough for disqualification from deduction under section 15C of the 1922 Act (corresponding section 80-I). We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1997-98. The order of the CIT(A) as well as that of Assessing Officer for assessment year 1996-97 are set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction to the assessee under section 80-I for the assessment year 1996-97 as well as for the assessment year 1997-98. 11. In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 is allowed, the appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 1997-98 is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 710
... ...
... ... ..... case, the levy of Service Tax on Staff Costs defined by BWIL, under the heading ‘Management Consultancy Service’ cannot be upheld. Levy on such costs could be as on Business Auxiliary Service, which was not a Taxable Service prior to 2003 and appellants is not a service provider as Management Consultant. (d) Once that is found and the appellant cannot be classified as a Service Provider under management Consultant Levy of Service Tax cannot visit prior to 2003 or after 2003 under a ‘Management Consultant’. (e) When there is no levy of Service Tax on the appellants, for the services provided, there was no requirement of registration and filing of returns and or delay payment of any tax during the period under dispute. The penalties imposed are to be set aside along with the demand of tax as made and interest consequent thereon. 4. The orders are therefore required to be set aside. 5. Appeal to be allowed with consequent relief. 6. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 709
... ...
... ... ..... istake is corrected, consequential order must follow and the Tribunal has power to pass all necessary consequential orders. Therefore, we hold that non-consideration of existing and binding decision of jurisdictional High Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal dated 27th January, 2004 and we rectify the said order to the extent that assessee is entitled to get benefit of deduction under section 80-IA and we hold that CIT(A) has rightly held so. Thus, revenue’s ground relating to deduction under section 80-IA for both the years is dismissed. As the only other ground taken in the appeal for assessment year 1996-97 by the revenue was in respect of disallowance of water charges paid to BMC was dismissed by the order of this Tribunal dated 27th January, 2004, the appeals filed by the revenue are considered to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the abovementioned terms.
-
2004 (8) TMI 708
... ...
... ... ..... ts case and therefore, assessee came before the CIT in appeal. The CIT(A) placing reliance upon the law laid down by this Court set aside that part of the deduction and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer by directing the Assessing Officer to calculate the deduction under section 80-I of the Act from the gross total income before allowing the admissible deduction under section 80-HH of the Act. This finding was sought to be challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the same was repelled by passing the impugned order. The Tribunal rightly placing reliance upon the view taken by this Court in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products, upheld the direction given by the CIT to the Assessing Officer. 4. When the issue is settled by this Court and the same having been upheld by the Supreme Court the appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act cannot be said to involve any substantial question of law so as to entertain it. 5. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine.
-
2004 (8) TMI 707
... ...
... ... ..... te of Tamil Nadu. 11. In the present case, dealer failed to prove that it acted as a Purchasing Commission Agent, inasmuch as, no evidence has been adduced for a contract of agency as stated above, holding of B-license under the Coal Control Orders and charging of costs of coal, freight charges and expenses and commission separately in the invoices are of no consequence. Prices charged separately in the invoices are only device with an intent to reduce the sale price. In the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sunil Kumar Coal Agent, Gorakhpur U.P.T.C. 2003 page 1036 in the similar circumstances, this Court held that inward freight is the part of turnover and dealer failed to prove that he acted as Purchasing Coal Agent in the absence of any contract of agency. 12. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the freight incurred prior to sale in bringing the coal from Coalery to the dealer destination would be part of the turnover.
-
2004 (8) TMI 706
Whether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that A-1 to A-6 alongwith A-9 (since deceased) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to commit the murder of the deceased?
-
2004 (8) TMI 705
Whether there were several factors on merits which could not be highlighted before the learned Single Judge as he chose not to deal with the matter on merits but directed the matter to be remanded to the Tribunal?
-
2004 (8) TMI 704
... ...
... ... ..... ording to theCounsel. 3. We have perused the record and heard the learned SDR also. Thelegal provision in question reads as under - "Provided that the manufacturer shall on demand pay the dutyleviable on any goods which are not accounted for in the mannerspecifically provided in these Rules, or which are not shown to thesatisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed bynatural causes or by unavoidable accident during holding or storagein such store room or other approved premises." (emphasissupplied.) 4. A perusal of the rule makes it clear that the contention of theappellant is right. An investigation and determination regarding thepreventability of the "natural cause" is not contemplatedby the Rule, which is what the impugned order has proceeded to do.The impugned order is set aside for being beyond the scope of therule. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to theappellants Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.
-
2004 (8) TMI 703
... ...
... ... ..... at a conclusion that no notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee. Hence, no interference is called for. Dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 702
... ...
... ... ..... r Section 3-F. 9. Admittedly, applicant had not disclosed the sale price of the imported paper and had only disclosed the purchase price and therefore, sale price was not curtained and has to be determined. notification Mo. ST-713/1 l-4(2)/88-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-97 dated 27th February, 1997 states that in case where sale consideration is not known the sale price will be cost value which include purchase price and expenses incurred for bringing the goods at the site of works contract and 20 per cent price thereon, notification dated 27th February, 1997 reads as follows 10. Tribunal has confirmed the estimate of value in view of the aforesaid notification, which cannot be said to be without any basis. Learned Counsel for the applicant is not able to point out any mistake in the calculation of the turnover of ₹ 66,84,000, which has been estimated as "turnover". 11. In the result, for the reasons stated above, revision has no force and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 701
Whether the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing the order of detention dated 15.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (in short the 'Commissioner') directing detention of Chinnaboina Shankar @ C. Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') legal?
Whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order?
-
2004 (8) TMI 700
... ...
... ... ..... om September, 2002 to December, 2002, has held that the appellants are eligible to the Cenvat Credit on Explosives and like materials used in the mines for production of another goods i.e. , Limestone. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against the Order of the Commissioner and hence this has been accepted by the Revenue. 3(C). Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant further submits that in view of the above decisions and the subsequent Order-in-Appeal as referred to above, the appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri J.R. Madhiam, learned JDR for the Revenue, simply reiterates the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the Consultant for the appellant company has cited several case-laws under which the inputs used in the mines have been held to be eligible for the Cenvat Credit. Respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal referred to above, I set aside the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal.
-
2004 (8) TMI 699
... ...
... ... ..... to Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available in view of the finding that there was no suppression of any relevant fact from the Department. The notice as well as demand were therefore time barred. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 698
... ...
... ... ..... ith the order of the High Court. The Special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 697
... ...
... ... ..... enalty could be imposed on the assessee for any action taken pursuant to the amended rule. Same view was taken by the Larger Bench in the case of Chemco Pulp & Tissue v. CCE . The CEGAT was concerned with Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 which held that HSD oil is not an input under Rule 57A or under Rule 57B retrospectively from 1995. Relying on a similar Explanation to Section 112 of the Finance Act, the CEGAT held no penalty could be imposed on the assessees who were denied the credit of duty paid on the HSD oil. This decision was followed in CCE v. Ranga Villas CS & W Mills 2002 (149) ELT 742 2002 (103) ECR 757 (T) and in Shaw Wallace Co. v. CCE . Therefore, when the notices ab initio are not valid, the credits are found to be eligible and special reasons exist to absolve the appellants from penal consequences. Penalty imposed are no sustained and are set aside. 4. Consequently the order is required to be set aside and appeals allowed. 5. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 696
... ...
... ... ..... goods arise. If the modvat credit relating to the CV duty on the imported goods is set off against the customs duty demand on the very same imported goods, it would indirectly amount to exempting him from the payment of the CV duty on the imported goods...” 2. We find no reason to interfere with the order made by the Settlement Commission and, hence, the writ petition is rejected.
........
|
