|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 931 Records
-
2008 (9) TMI 938 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Central Excise) - the decision in the case of TRIVENI ENGG. & INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT [2002 (7) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 937 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - debonding of units - Circular No. 185/19/96-Ces dated 19-3-1996 - Held that: - It is clear from the record that at the time of debonding, amount equal to excise duty was paid by the respondent and, therefore, after debonding the appellant would be entitled to avail credit of that amount - reliance rightly placed on Circular No. 185/19/96-Ces dated 19-3-1996 - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (9) TMI 936 - SC ORDER
Valuation - annual production capacity - Held that: - petitioner not utilizing furnace to its full capacity is not a ground to assess lower capacity - petition allowed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 935 - SUPREME COURT
Whether during the course of progress or work or thereafter or after recession of the contract, shall be referred to the arbitration as provided in the condition No.51 of the Heading "scope and performance" in the Tender documents and shall be deemed to be reference within the relevant provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and or any statutory modification of enactment there under?
-
2008 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rived at the finding that no duty is due from the respondents after going through the invoices and observing that the lower authority had given considered lower discounts than that was allowed for such clearances in computing the clearance value, in the absence of accurate computation of value, we find, the appeal filed by the Revenue cannot be considered. Moreover as contended by the respondent before the Commissioner (A) and the original authority, the department had completed the investigation in 1996 and issued SCN for demanding the amount short paid in 1998 whereby the demand had become barred by limitation. There is no rebuttal of the assessee’s above claim in both the orders of the lower authorities. The demand is time barred. In the circumstances, we do not find that the impugned order vacating the demand and penalty need to be disturbed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Operative part of the order pronounced in open Court on 30-9-2008)
-
2008 (9) TMI 933 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nit to Domestic Tariff Area are leviable to rate of duty at the effective rate as fixed under exemption Notifications and not at the tariff rate. For holding so, reliance was placed upon the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Lucky Star International as also another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Varsha Exports vs. UOI - 2000 (40J RLT 9 (Guj.). 3. Apart from the above, we also note that a clarification stands issued by the Ministry of Finance vide its letter F.No. 305/113/94-FTT, dated 19.2.1998 clarifying that the duty in respect of clearances made by a 100 EOU would be at the effective rate of duty and such units would be entitled to clear their goods under Notification No. 8/97-CE read with Notification No. 4/97-CE. It is well settled that Revenue cannot argue against the clarification given by the Board. 4. In view of the above, we find no merits in the present appeal of the Revenue and reject the same. Pronounced in the open Court.
-
2008 (9) TMI 932 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d set up a 100 export oriented unit and was engaged in the manufacturing of hosiery knitted fabric and knitted garments. It was found that the unit had suppressed the fact relating to clandestine removal and job work with an intention to evade payment of central excise duty and contravened the provisions of exemption notifications as well as of the exemption policy read with the provisions of letter of permission, legal undertaking and B-17 Bond executed with the department. In view of proven factual matrix, the proposed questions being pure questions of evidence and facts do not arise in this appeal. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (9) TMI 931 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee before Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was a jurisdictional defect in notice issued under section 148 on basis of which the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction and made assessment. In fact, this was the very view taken by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) also which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. We see no reason to interfere with these findings on fact. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. In favour of assessee
-
2008 (9) TMI 930 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... M/s Cosmos Industries through Shri Vinod Kumar Jain. The tribunal has noted that a finding of clandestine removal can only be returned based on positive evidence produced by the revenue. A finding of clandestine removal cannot be returned on the basis of mere presumptions and suppositions. The tribunal concluded that there is nothing on record to show that the goods were actually cleared as no statement of any such customer has been brought on record. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the revenue has not been able to prove its charge against M/s Bihariji Manufacturing Pvt Ltd. and M/s Hindustan Silicate and Chemicals of clandestine removal of the goods in question. Resultantly, there is no question of any duty being demanded from them and that the goods seized from their premises were also not liable for confiscation. The findings returned by the tribunal are pure findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. This appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 929 - SC ORDER
SFP is just an extension of BCI and two units were being run as one unit only and the goods actually manufactured in BCI were being cleared through SFP without payment of duty, claiming SSI exemption - the decision in the case of BOX & CARTON INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-IV [2008 (4) TMI 109 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], contested, where it was held that clubbing of clearances of BCI and SFP for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances, is justified - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 928 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... , 2002. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I have found hardly any valid ground against the demand of duty on mercerized yarn. However, the rejection, by the lower authorities, of the assessee's prayer for grant of input-duty credit is apparently unjustifiable. Where duty is demanded on final product, the assessee should, in the normal course, be allowed to utilise input-duty credit to pay such duty. The reason stated by the lower authorities in this case for denial of CENVAT credit on input (grey yarn) is that the appellants did not follow the procedure like filing of declaration etc. It is trite law that a substantive right is not to be denied on the ground of infraction of procedural provision. After all, procedure is only a handmaid of justice. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied input-duty credit to the appellants. The appeals are allowed to this extent. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2008 (9) TMI 927 - SC ORDER
Reduction in the quantum of penalty - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI Versus SR ENTERPRISES [2007 (11) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on merits.
-
2008 (9) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT
Whether appointment by promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer was illegal and contrary to law ?
-
2008 (9) TMI 924 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ecision cited supra, and hence held that the importers were entitled to relinquish the title to the goods. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. I find that it is possible to dispose of this appeal in the light of Tribunal's order in the case of Mine Safety Appliance (I) Ltd. vs. CC, Sheva 2007 (211) ELT 319, without going into the question as to whether the importers had the right to relinquish the title to the goods in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Customs Act. Undisputedly, the imported goods were auctioned off suo moto by the CWC. Therefore, in the light of the Mine Safety decision cited supra, the duty demand and interest cannot be sustained due to nonavailability of the goods, they having been disposed of during the pendency of the case. The penalty is also set aside as not sustainable. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed, without expressing any view on the applicability of Section 23 (2) to the facts of the present case.
-
2008 (9) TMI 923 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... such party to move a writ application and the court has the power to entertain the same if it finds that while passing the order there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice. That being the position, in the present case the appellant was not served with any notice before passing the impugned order. That being the position and without going into the merits, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the dispute raised by the parties before us, all questions are left open to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs
-
2008 (9) TMI 922 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cording to him Harendra Prasad had handed over the silver to him at Raxaul. Not only this, the silver did not have any mark of foreign origin. Its purity is 97.40 , whereas in the case of silver of foreign origin it is normally of 99.99 . In these backgrounds, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in not relying on the confessional statement of Ram Lochan Sah. 7. Accordingly our answer to the questions No. 1 formulated is in the affirmative, against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the confessional statement of Harendra Prasad. 8. From what we have stated above it is evident that Tribunal’s findings is on assessment of relevant material. 9. Accordingly answer to the second question is in the negative, against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal finding is in accordance with the law and not vitiated on any count. 10. Reference is answered accordingly. 11. Tax case stands disposed of.
-
2008 (9) TMI 921 - SC ORDER
Validity of Section 43B(f) - Nexus with object of clause (f) - unreasonable deduction claim on the basis of mercantile accounting method without discharging statutory liabilities - Ultra Vires the decision of Bharat Earth Movers [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] - Supreme Court after issuing notices, granted stay on the impugned judgment of High Court [2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA High Court] filed by revenue until further orders, wherein High court held that struck down Section 43B(f) as being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers [2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA High Court].
-
2008 (9) TMI 919 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rt turnover was that the impugned amounts were not brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. It is not so in the present case. In the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, the decision of the Hyderabad Bench has been relied upon in the case of D.E. Block India Software Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.983 and 984/Hyd/06 dt. 31-1-2007. According to these decisions, if the expenses are to be excluded from the export turnover, then likewise they have to be excluded from the total turnover also. We direct accordingly. 6. Another issue common to assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 relates to the disallowance of claim on account of export proceeds not received during the year. This issue was not pressed at the time of the hearing and hence the same is rejected as such. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 are partly allowed and for assessment year 2001-02, it is allowed. The order was pronounced in the court on 26-9-2008.
-
2008 (9) TMI 918 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion is covered by judgment of this Court in the case of the assessee in the earlier assessment year Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. CIT 1999 180 ITR 211 1, which has been further followed by this Court in the case of the assessee in CIT v. Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. 2002 255 ITR 189 (Punj. and Har.). 61. In view of earlier judgments of this Court, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Re Q. No. (xxiv) 62. On behalf of the assessee, it has been pointed out that the trust deed is dated 29-12-1976 with effect from 1-10-1973 and was granted recognition by the Commissioner on 29-12-1975. It has, however, not been disputed that the requirement of section 40(a)( iv) was not involved as there was no provision of deduction of tax at source. 63. In view of finding recorded by us in reply to Question No. (i), this question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 64. The reference will stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (9) TMI 917 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid, though under KVSS, the same income cannot be now taxed either protectively or otherwise, we follow the said decision, in view of the fact that the revenue is going to challenge the said judgment and order of the earlier Division Bench of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though various authorities were cited before us by the learned Counsels appearing for both sides, since the same were cited before the earlier Division Bench and were duly considered, we deem it fit not to repeat the same here in this judgment. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to in all these references in negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and hold that the Appellate Tribunal was not right in law and on facts in holding that share income of the assessee as a beneficiary from M/s. Bharat Trust / Navbharat Trust, Norma Trust should be assessed on substantive basis. 16. All these references are accordingly disposed off without any order as to costs.
............
|
