Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2010 2010 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 421 to 440 of 692 Records

• 2010 (5) TMI 463 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – Rent-a-cab service - appellant had provided the vehicle on rent - no Service tax registration was obtained and no Service tax liability was discharged - appellant has only submitted that he is a senior citizen and illiterate and does not know the provisions of law - appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie in its favour so as to allow unconditional stay – waiver partly allowed

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 462 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty – Bona fide mistake – EOU, DTA clearance against foreign exchange - appellants applied conversion rate, as was available in the previous notification as against correct conversion rate in terms of Notification No. 68/2003-Cus - goods having been cleared on proper invoice, this lapse cannot be attributed to any mala fide so as to invoke any penal provision against the appellant – Penalty aside

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 461 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  SSI exemption – Brand name of another – Brand name of foreign collaborator used by assessee - no difference whether the goods on which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered - Even if the goods are different so long as the trade name or the brand name of some other company used, the benefit of notification not available

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 460 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Limitation – Delay in filing appeal – condonation of delay – Appeal filed beyond time limit but revenue having knowledge of relevant order before, cannot be said to have sufficient cause of delay – Sufficient cause absent and Dept. not admitting delay and expecting Tribunal to condone delay – delay not condoned

  Strictures against Dept. – Delay in filing appeal – Delay due to getting official copy – absence of due diligence by Dept. to take appropriate steps in time - on account of carefree attitude on the part of the Government officers, matters get delayed - when it comes to condonation of delay, the reasons should be justifiable reasons and shall be in relation to the sufficient cause for condonation of delay – Delay not condoned

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 459 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - rate of duty with reference to retail sale price - records disclose that the appellants were manufacturing Gutkha pouches with weight of 2 gms. which were worth more than Rs. 2.01 each and pouches which were sold at Rs. 1.5 weighed only 1.8 gms. - Appellants were manufacturing pouches of 2 gms. with retail sale price of more than Rs. 2.01 - , it cannot be disputed that there is no concept of deemed RSP or MRP under the notification - However, notification clearly refers to the weight of each pouch for the purpose of determining the rate of duty. Once it is established that retail sale price of pouch weighing 1.8 gms. was Rs. 1.50, it is needless to say that pouch weighing 2 gms. ought to carry retail sale price of more than Rs. 2.01 per pouch in the absence of any material placed on record by the assessee disclosing its price to be at Rs. 1.50 - financial hardship and revenue interest, we consider it proper to waive 40% of the duty amount - interest and the penalty waived

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 457 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Appeal to Commissioner (Appeal) – Limitation – Appeal dismissed by Commissioner (Appeal) on the ground of delay - appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), under Form ST-4 - appeals under the Finance Act, 1994, can be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original - appellant had filed application for condonation of delay of appeals for filing the appeals beyond 60 days as envisaged under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, but within 30 days - delay of 28 days and which is within the powers of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to condone and suffice to say, that the powers could have been exercised by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in a better perspective than to dismiss the appeals for delay - Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and taken up the appeals for disposal on merits. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the assessee by way of remand

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 456 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  condonation of delay – limitation – copy of order was received by the appellants, the same was misplaced and it was not traceable - appellants had already paid the entire duty amount and the interest payable thereon to the Department much prior to the disposal of the matter by the adjudicating authority - undisputed fact that they had also paid 25% of the total penalty amount leviable based on the duty liability - order nowhere discloses consideration of the matter on merits and the same has been dismissed merely on the bar of limitation - appellants had disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the matter and hence the impugned order on this ground itself cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 454 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit – Duty paying documents – Invoice not in name of assessee - Department has failed to prove that the material was not received in the premises of the respondent as claimed by them - credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the name of the consignee not shown in the invoice - It was not disputed that the goods were not received in the appellant factory and has not been utilized in putting put up the plant for manufacture of excisable goods by the appellant factory - Cenvat credit cannot be denied

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 453 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Reimbursement of expenses - deduction u/s 44BB - Held that: - deduction of an amount received on account of reimbursement of mobilization charges by the NRC in respect of the transportation of rigs outside territorial waters of India is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another, (2007 -TMI - 3679 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT)

  The reimbursed amount (under reference) was the amount paid to the respondent on account of supply of plant and machinery to be used in the prospecting for, or extraction, or production of mineral oils in India. - the same is squarely covered, in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent / assessee, in view of the judgment rendered in Sedco Forex International Inc.'s case (2007 -TMI - 3679 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT).

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 451 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay order - Tribunal had considered the case of the respondents on merits before grant of stay - stay granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal forbidden from considering the matter on merits afresh

  Order – Reference to earlier decisions - Merely because there was reference to a reported decision dealing with various issues, the same cannot be held to have been made the basis for the decision in the case unless the issues which arise for consideration are also the issues which were decided in the reported decision – order cannot be said to be based on those decisions unless they also dealt with same issue - reference to those decisions cannot mean that order ignored issues framed therein and influence it - Such issues to be decided independently in accordance with the provisions of law and depending upon the facts of the cases

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 449 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Production caacity based duty – Re-determination of duty – Assessee once opting for compounded levy scheme, not entiteled to opt out before expiry of financial year – in order to opt out of the scheme and/or get the annual capacity of the furnace determined, the assessee has to approach the competent authority in that regard and invite an order modifying the determination of the capacity of production - no such order was obtained by the respondents - Commissioner (Appeals) was not the competent authority in this regard - Commissioner (Appeals) clearly erred in giving concession to the respondents in the duty liability contrary to the provisions of Section 3A read with the provisions of Rule 96-ZO – appeal allowed and order set aside

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 448 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Sale of seized goods - disposal of the goods without prior notice to the Petitioner - Petitioner must be able to show that if he had been given prior notice of the sale then the goods would have fetched a higher price – Held that: - declared invoice value of the imported goods of 17,000 US dollars, the sale of the goods to NCCF for a sum of Rs. 10,26,000/- more than two years later, cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the Petitioner - goods which were perishable in nature should be disposed of in accordance with the Circular dated20th February 2006 - petitioner fails and the order in adjudication was confirmed or modified and the differential duty and the penalty levied is found recoverable then the amount in the fixed deposit together with the accrued interest can be adjusted against such amount at the appropriate stage – No illegality committed by Commissioner in Sale of seized goods

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Penalty – cenvat credit wrongly availed - capital goods/inputs which were used in the Application Research Centre and Product Development Research Centre, was within the factory premises to the appellant – reversal of cenvat credit - appellant had not challenged the reversal - appellant had not challenged the confirmation of the demand of the duty - lower authorities' order so as to raise contention for non-imposition of penalty - penalty imposed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under the Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not sustainable - penalty imposed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 13 is set aside

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – cenvat credit - lamination of duty-paid film and printing thereon – Credit denied holding non-manufacture - CENVAT credit which was sought to be denied to the assessee was lower than the amount of duty paid by them on the commodity which the department would not recognise as excisable goods - duty paid by the appellant on the laminated/printed material was said to be a deposit under Section 11D, as per the impugned order - applicability of Section 11D there are two mandatory requirements, firstly, it can be invoked against a person who is liable to pay duty and secondly, such liability should be in respect of (excisable goods) - commodity to be an (excisable product) and its manufacturer to be liable to pay duty thereon - appellant has made out, prima facie, case against the adjudged dues - pre-deposit waived

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit on countervailing duty – export obligation not fulfilled – Settlement Commission directed for payment of 85% of duty liability and directed cenvat credit of CVD – Dept not including BCD for calculation of CVD – Cenvat credit allowed of CVD calculated by including BCD

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 444 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Clandestine manufacture and removal - respondents have not maintained the statutory records namely, the daily production register and raw material register - maintained private records including the computerized form of records but were not maintaining the statutory records - No explanation is forthcoming for the said failure on the part of the respondents - shortage of stock of 15.928 MT of MS ingots even out of stock declared by them on 19-11-03 before the visiting officers - No explanation has been offered for such shortage either in reply to the notice - shortage of the finished goods on the date of visit by the officers and the private records, the order of the original authority in confirming the demand and imposition of penalty is justified - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 443 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cenvat credit - credit on doors and components of Air Handling Unit - steel doors & frames and the Polysterene panels play a vital role in the appellant's production activity - appellant not specified the purpose - lower authorities, correct on denying the Cenvat credit

  Cenvat credit - Cenvat credit on drying plates, plastic pallets and steel racks - drying plates used for drying gelatin capsules in the dryer and plastic pallets were used for transportation of raw materials, semi finished goods and finished goods within the factory premises and the steel racks are used for storing the raw materials and finished goods - delivery of the goods includes transportation of the goods by plastic crates - plastic crates are again used for such transportation - plastic crates eligible for Modvat credit

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 442 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Order – Implementation of DEPB scheme - petitioner given refund by way of re-credit in the DEPB licence - re-credit granted that the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Customs to issue a re-credit note and that has not been issued - Order-in-Original passed sanctioning a refund - Custom authorities cannot drag their feet on such an issue

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Manufacture - assessee carries on the business of manufacturing glassware as also the process of colour printing and decoration of the glassware - assessee pleaded that the activity of printing and decorating glassware, already manufactured, in a separate factory did not amount to "manufacture" – Held that: - assessee had a separate unit for carrying out the process of decoration etc. on the glassware - show cause notices issued, pertained to the period during which the goods were cleared by the assessee under the price list finally approved, in respect of a sesparate unit for which revised ground plan was submitted and approved - appeals, being devoid of any merit – appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (5) TMI 440 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit – Input cleared as such - assessee took credit of the duty paid on goods, subsequently, goods cleared without payment of duty - CENVAT credit rules allows a manufacturer to clear as such duty paid inputs, in respect of which credit has been taken, either for home consumption on reversal of the credit or for export or export processing without payment of duty - activity undertaken by the appellants appear to be within the four corners of law so long as ultimate export is not questioned - orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed

  ---

1 ....181920212223242526........ 35