|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1010 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1141
Refund of cenvat credit - interest on delayed refund - under provisions of clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Act.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... ndent Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. ORDER It is pointed out that appeals have been admitted in the connected matters. Consequently, these appeals are also admitted. Tag with C.A. No. 8063-8069/2010.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... covered in these petitions, upon furnishing bank guarantee of 25 of the duty claimed and furnishing personal bond for rest of the amount. It is clarified that this is on the condition that petitioners shall file appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) within two weeks from today. It is further directed that appeals be disposed of expeditiously and in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of such appeals. It is clarified that if such appeals are not preferred within two weeks, then this protection shall cease to operate automatically. 8. It is further clarified that by our previous order we had permitted part of the containers to be released unconditionally. Such containers already released shall also be covered under this formula. We have expressed no opinion on rival contentions. All issues will be decided by Commissioner of Appeals unmindful of observations which may have been made in this order. 9. With above directions, petitions are disposed of.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... emium paid was fixed and there was no element of speculation in the transaction, the amount so paid set to rest the possible fluctuation liability of the assessee company at the time of repayment of loan. While doing so, the assessee-company reduced its cost of borrowings to 11.021 including the premium cost as against 14.5 interest charged by the bank on cash account. The ld. CIT(A) verified the calculations furnished by the assessee and came to the conclusion that no element of speculation in the transaction was there. Since the transaction in question was a business transaction, therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground No. 3 is dismissed. 29. Grounds No.4 and 5 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 30. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1137
Whether a relaxation of five years and three years respectively to SC/ST and OBC candidates in age limit for being considered for selection to the post of Sepoy in the Central Excise department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India would be applicable to those candidates who were actually erstwhile employees of the said department?
-
2011 (7) TMI 1136
Whether it was mandatory/necessary in view of the agreement/contract or on the basis of pre-bid understanding that the State had to issue the notification barring the vehicles through the markets of Bharatpur city?
Whether the rate of interest could be reduced from 18% to 10% by the courts below?
Whether the private appellant had a right to collect the toll fee on the patch between Bharatpur Deeg?
What amount could have been recovered by the private appellant for Bharatpur-Deeg part of the road from the vehicles using the road?
What could be the effect on the contract as a whole for non-executing the work of the second phase?
-
2011 (7) TMI 1135
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where in case of cheating, a charge sheet has been filed, the matter can, and is required to be transferred for investigation/further investigation to the CBI?
-
2011 (7) TMI 1134
Bricks - Demand of tax on the basis of assumption - Appellant relied upon the order of the first appellate authority and stated that 7000 bricks were donated and 70,000 bricks were used for the construction of a room. He also submits that in second session, the burning period was for only 12 days, which was wrongly estimated on higher side - Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee pertaining to the use of 70,000 bricks despite the certificate was issued by the village Pradhan.
Held that: - at the time of survey, no proper books of accounts were found and the same were neither produced at any stage before the authorities below nor before the Tribunal. So, the A.O. was right to make the addition on estimate basis specially when no record was kept regarding the sanction of bricks and donation the same - revision dismissed - decided against assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income tax assessment number and shown the genuineness of transaction by showing money either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the revenue. In the present case, assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity of the share applicants. 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents relied upon, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Assessee’s Cross Objection 12. In the C.O. assessee has agitated against reopening of case being not valid. We find that we have already decided the issue on merits of the case in favour of the assessee. Hence, the CO has become infructuous. Hence, this C.O. stands dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 22nd July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... of tax for the year 1998-1999. The petitioner statedly sent reminders seeking refund, but in vain. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit traversing the petitioner allegations. Be that as it may, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes fairly submits that the refund claim of the petitioner is in advanced stage of process by the department. Taking note of this, and also that the writ petition has been pending for the last four years, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner. i) There shall be a direction to the first respondent to pass necessary proceedings for refund of the amount as determined by the assessing officer vide order dated 18.11.2003, taking into consideration the date of application for refund as 27.01.2004. ii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... t address in the country, such a taxable service shall be treated as a recipient of service, had himself provided the service in India and accordingly, all the provisions of Section 66A is attracted. Therefore, it was held, prior to 18-4-2006, the Service Tax was not payable by the recipient in the event service provided is outside the country and he has no permanent address or place of business within the country. 3. In the instant case, the Service Tax demanded from the assessee was for the period both prior to 18-4-2006 and subsequent to 18-4-2006. In view of the aforesaid judgment, there is no liability to pay Service Tax prior to 18-4-2006. Insofar as the liability to pay Service Tax subsequent to 18-4-2006 is concerned, the liability exists, as rightly held by the Tribunal. But the said claim is made beyond the period prescribed in law and therefore, not recoverable. Therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1130
... ...
... ... ..... ying the legal position that such a conversion is permissible. Once such a conversion is permissible, the assessee is entitled to duty drawback and benefit of duty drawback is a matter required to be calculated by the Appellate Commissioner. It is in those circumstances, after setting aside the finding of the Commissioner that such a conversion is not permissible, the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the permissibility of duty drawback in accordance with Rules. Wherefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law and does not suffer from any infirmity, which calls for interference. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. 4. In the light of what we have stated above, the appeal is rejected. The substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, the matter stands remitted to the Commissioner for determination of duty.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1129
... ...
... ... ..... ances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act and those mentioned in Schedule-I to the NDPS Rules was not before the Supreme Court in Ravindran John (supra)." 20. Till the matter is resolved by the larger bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court this court is bound by the decision rendered in State of Uttaranchal (surpa) and Rajesh Sharma (supra). Thus I find no infirmity in the impugned order on this count. 21. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Learned Trial Court erred in discharging the Respondents on an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Firstly the impugned order was not passed as an order in review but on an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. duly permitted by this Court. Moreover the Respondents have not been discharged but the matter has been remanded to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the provisions of D & C Act and Rules. 22. The petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... ced that the witnesses consistently stated that the appellant had removed fabrics valued at ₹ 22/- per square meter without the payment of duty during the period of dispute. The quantity of fabrics which was removed, was stated by the Proprietor and his clerk in their respective statements. The retraction was only in a reply to the notice to show cause. Moreover, the clerk, who was dealing with excise matters, provided quantitative details of the clandestine removal of fabrics and that statement was not controverted. On this finding of fact, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the demand of duty and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal also noted that in the reply to the notice to show cause, the appellant conceded that the fabrics seized by the Officers, who visited the factory, were in quantities which were in excess over what was accounted in the statutory records. 2. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1127
Unaccounted Purchases - After issuing notice u/s 133(6), AO, treated some purchases as bogus - Assessee contended that when since the department has accepted the sale as genuine, obviously the corresponding purchase would also be genuine - HELD THAT:- So far as the genuineness of the purchase is concerned, we find that the assessee has claimed to have purchased the finished goods. However, in respect of all the parties, on the sale bills, there was no telephone number or no printed bill number. The assessee was unable to produce the confirmation from any of the parties.
These facts clearly establish that the assessee did not make the purchase from the above parties and claim of such purchases was not genuine. - Decided against the assessee.
Estimation of income - HELD THAT:- On this fact, the decision of the ITAT in the case of M/S. SANKET STEEL TRADERS VERSUS. ITO, WARD-5 (1) VADODARA. [2011 (5) TMI 961 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], would be squarely applicable.
We respectfully following the above decision of the restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchase. We direct the AO to work out disallowance accordingly.
Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... change of facts, consistent view should not be deviated from. It has not been pleaded by ld. DR there is any change in facts. In view thereof, we are unable to accept the proposition of the Department. The issue about rental income being treated in the hands of assessee as income from business, we see no reason to deviate from this finding. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of April, 2010.” 10. In view of above discussion, we dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue ex-parte qua the ld. DR not only on account of low tax effect but also on the ground that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the aforementioned two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself. 11. In the result, both the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05.07.2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... duced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment. The incident took place in the year 1991 and it is 20 years old matter. The petitioner has already faced trial before the trial court and further suffered mental agony during pendency of his appeal and revision petition before appellate court and this Court. Therefore, in my view, ends of justice will meet in case his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of 34 days imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, revision petition of the petitioner is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Custom Act is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from three months rigorous imprisonment to a period of 34 days rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the same will remain as it is as per direction of trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1124
Denial of SSI Exemption - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the benefit of SSI exemption is admissible in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 to proprietary concern manufacturing specific excisable goods using the brand name owned by another partnership firm in which proprietor of the assessee is one of the partner.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1123
Excisability of Fabricated items - Manufacture - classification under Heading 73.08 of the CET - appellants are fabricating columns, purlines etc. by cutting, drilling, punching and welding on duty paid channels and angles and thereafter these are being assembled to post at work site and are fixed in the exact position.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... not so excessive that they may be treated to be unjust or arbitrary. These Rules are reasonable in their operation and do not cause undue hardship to the distiller. The overtime fees is to be paid only if the distiller decides to run the distillery overtime. In the present case, the Rules have stood for the last 45 years. They have been amended by increasing the prescribed overtime fees for four times which is neither excessive nor can be treated to be excessive on the distiller makes huge profits in making production overtime. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that any of the submissions namely the rules being ultra-vires to the Act and not co-relative to the services rendered by the department,or oppressive or harsh are established. We may also observe that prescription of overtime fees is the condition of the license and that by the nature of its imposition it is a fee connected with parting in the privilege to run the distillery. The writ petitions are dismissed.
............
|
