|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 645 Records
-
2007 (5) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a particular employee comes within the definition of workman has to be decided factually?
Whether it affects the legal rights of individual workers in the context that if they fall within the definition then they would be entitled to claim several benefits conferred by the Act?
-
2007 (5) TMI 612 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Confiscation of goods - import of old/used photocopiers of various models without import licence - valuation - enhancement of value - penalty
-
2007 (5) TMI 611 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f this order. Subject to deposit of the above amount, predeposit of balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty imposed upon other applicants shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals. It is made clear that failure to deposit the above amount would result in automatic dismissal of all the appeals without any further notice to the appellants. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 19.4.07.” Considering the facts discussed by the Tribunal and especially when the outstanding dues of duty is more than ₹ 5 crores, we see no justification to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. However, in case the petitioner deposits an amount of ₹ 1.00 crore (Rupees One Crore only) immediately out of the amount of ₹ 2.5 crores and deposits the balance amount of ₹ 1.5 crore within four weeks from today, the appeal will be considered by the Tribunal on merits.
-
2007 (5) TMI 610 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner has not moved any application for refund, the petitioner is not entitled for interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act ( “the Act” for short). The case of the petitioner is that even before filing the petition, the petitioner has moved an application for refund on 17.9.2001 (AnnexureA the second application on 31.01.2003 has been moved for refund of ₹ 52,54,06,510/. When these applications which are on record are not disputed having been moved for refund, at least, after expiry of three months from the date of these applications submitted to the authority, the petitioner is entitled for interest, especially, when the aforesaid orders of the High Court on writ petition as well as Misc. Civil Application. Both the orders are not challenged and become final. Consequently, this petition is allowed with directions to the respondents to pay the interest on the refund allowed taking into account the date of application submitted for refund.
-
2007 (5) TMI 609 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court came to correct conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded to the prescribed authority?
-
2007 (5) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Addition on Undisclosed income - Notice u/s 158BC - search and seizure operation u/s 132 - found incriminating documents - Whether order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 158BC - HELD THAT:- In the present case, during the search, only ownership papers of the property were found and seized. No other incriminating document was found which may show that there was understatement of the purchase consideration or the cost of improvement. The papers with regard to the ownership will always be found with the owner and finding of such documents does not lead to any inference that either the purchase consideration or the cost of improvement has been understated. Since no document was found in the course of search leading to any adverse inference about the understatement. Thus, no computation of undisclosed income could have been made by resorting to the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
Hence, we hold that there is no basis for making an addition on account of undisclosed income in the present case and we do not see any reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal.
No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involve a substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 607 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... eration of finished goods at a lower rate and on consideration of relevant factors, taking into consideration totality of facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. In view of the suppression noticed, we also find that the proceeding was well within the extended period and was not hit by bar of limitation. However, imposition of equal amount of penalty as a right dose was not demonstrated by order of Adjudication. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case state of M.P. V. BHEL - 1998 (99) ELT 33 (SC) imposition penalty of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs would meet end of justice while interest shall be realizable according to law. 6. In the result appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Cross objection by revenue without any new ground other than supporting the order of adjudication does not call for any determination. Accordingly the same is dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 606 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ical goods. In other words, such classification by the Apex Court was one in rem in so far as the body-builders like the Respondents were concerned. Therefore, in our considered view, it will not be open to the Revenue to deny the benefit of Ram Body Builders (supra) to the Respondents. The challenge in the present appeals on this score cannot be sustained. 5. The remaining question is one relating to unjust enrichment. Unlike the batch of appeals decided by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 316 to 361/02 ibid, the instant cases are clear in that both the lower authorities examined the above question and decided thereon, learned Commissioner (Appeals). after careful consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the refund claims were not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. We have not found any contra evidence with the Appellant to rebut the finding of the lower Appellate Authority. 6. In the result, the impugned orders are sustained and these appeals are dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT
Whether West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994 unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
-
2007 (5) TMI 604 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of tax - whether tax can be levied only on actual sale consideration and not assessable value? - Held that: - The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the tax is leviable on actual sale consideration and not on assessable value of goods nor it can be based only on the sale consideration which might have been accepted by the Excise Department in the proceedings under the Excise Act. The appellate authority also held that the assessing authority merely on the basis of price shown in the excise proceedings, levied the tax whereas there is no material available on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the assessee has disclosed wrong consideration in his returns - sales tax revision dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 603 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unpaid Sales Tax collected or received was liable to tax by treating the same as a trading receipt. 11. This Bench must not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the correctness of the order dated 1.4.2004; what is being attempted to be emphasized is that had the earlier decisions of the Court been placed and what was not before the Court had been excluded, the decision that may have been rendered, would have been more in conformity with acknowledged judicial norms. 12. In view of the above, we are inclined to take the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 1.4.2004 should not be allowed to remain on record. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to exercise our inherent power to recall the said order dated 1.4.2004. 13. Cosnsequently, this review application is allowed. The order dated 1.4.2004 passed in ITA No. 13/2000 is recalled. The aforesaid appeal will now be required to be re-heard for which purpose the Registry will list the same.
-
2007 (5) TMI 602 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be passed on to the buyers as they were indeterminate and innumerable. That is not the situation here where individual contracts with known buyers have been entered into. The losses, if any, in the instant case are quantifiable and to the extent permissible in law, also recoverable. As regards the judgment in Ashoka Smokeless (supra), the petitioners there were the auction bidders themselves who had approached the Court questioning the e-auction of tenders. The question involved there was not one of revision of prices alone but also the procedure adopted. Those facts are clearly distinguishable in their application to the instant case. 33. For all the above reasons, it is held that no ground has been made out in the three writ petitions for interference by this Court. The petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000 each payable by the petitioners to each of the respondents i.e. Union of India and Food Corporation of India within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2007 (5) TMI 601 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the State Government can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by Planning Authority or not?
Whether the constructions mentioned in categories 1 to 4 will not be treated to be in violation of clause (b) of D.C.R.-2.4.11?
-
2007 (5) TMI 600 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Transportation charges - the decision in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2006 (7) TMI 495 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the delivery charges should not be included for the purpose of Central Excise duty - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the conviction of appellant Ravindran was not justified in view of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
-
2007 (5) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2002 providing for the mode and manner for considering the suitability of candidates for promotion from one post to the other correct?
Whether he DPC must take into consideration the merit and merit only?
-
2007 (5) TMI 597 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the shops, godowns or sheds be transferred to the writ petitioners on hire-purchase basis?
Whether the respondents concerned not to interfere, in any manner, on the possession of the petitioners' shops and godowns allotted to the writ petitioners?
-
2007 (5) TMI 596 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ollowing - "Though the assessee was carrying on business for more than two and half decades and had a good market reputation and market share, it has not charged anything for the goodwill. The assessee continued to be the owner of 49 shares of the new company. The directors were employed by the new company and they were getting salary income. The assessee, was in capable of competing because it had neither finances nor technology nor any other important wherewithal's. Further, when you sell the business, manufacturing automatically stops. And to start a new one, it takes years, provided you have other capacity. Therefore, receiving money for stopping of manufacturing is obviously used to mislead the tax authorities. Subsequent conduct of the assessee brings out the fact that no such compensation was possible." 8. This view of the CIT(A) is justified and the assessee's appeal is dismissed accordingly. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 595 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with pre-deposit - non-speaking order - Held that: - after the interim order was passed the appellants have approached the Commissioner (A) for modification of the order for recall of the interim order. The said application has not been considered by the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) has got inherent power to recall the interim order - There is no finding with regard to the grounds taken in the interim order. The Commissioner (A) has put the appellants on terms with due application of mind, therefore the order is also not a speaking order - matter remanded to reconsider the application filed by the appellants for waiver of pre-deposit and decide the issue in terms of law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2007 (5) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
Whether writ petitioner No. 5 was entitled for exemption from the requirement of age limit having regard to certain GOs issued by the Revenue Department of the State Governments?
........
|
