Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2019 2019 (9) 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 161 to 180 of 1723 Records

• 2019 (9) TMI 1569 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Liability of tax - manufacture of sheet metal components and effects sales to Hyundai Motor India Limited - section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Input tax credit - Section 19(2)(iv) of the Act - whether the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) are mandatory such that the certificate mentioned therein is the only method by which a dealer/assessee could support his claim in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the relevant statutory provision as well as Rule do not bring home the point that the production of an industrial input certificate is mandatory to avail the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act. No doubt, Rule 6(3)(b) refers to an industrial input certificate stating that such certificate ought to be procured by the purchaser from the seller.

  The Supreme Court, in SODHI TRANSPORT CO. AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF UP. AND ANOTHER (AND OTHER APPEALS AND WRIT PETITIONS) [1986 (3) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT], considered the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Sales Tax Act which contains provisions in parimateria with Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, in fact even stricter, since the phrase used therein is ‘shall produce a transit pass’, interpreting the same to state that non-production of a transit pass was not fatal as the burden of establishing exit of the goods from the State would then revert back to the assessee, who could well prove the same by reference to other supporting material. The presumption that the goods have not exited the State was thus rebuttable, enabling the dealer to draw support of other materials in its possession in this regard.

  Non-production of a Declaration under section 6(3)(b) is not fatal to the claim of the assessee. Having said so, the Assessing Authority has in the impugned order found that only a supporting statement was filed by the petitioner and had no actual particulars of transactions such as work order, inward delivery challan, quantity received and outward delivery challan were supplied. If at all the petitioner was of the view that its claim was in order, the burden rested upon it to justify such claim with whatever material that it could furnish. Such factual particulars do not appear to have been filed.

  While holding that the Declaration in terms of Section 6(3)(b) is not the only evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner and that the petitioner is well entitled to produce any other supporting evidence as it may be in a position to, this issue is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to be re-done after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

  Input Tax Credit - Section 19(2)(iv) of the Act - HELD THAT:- This Court, in the case of SARA LEATHERS VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [2009 (10) TMI 848 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the claim of refund by an assessee. The petitioner therein had claimed refund that had been restricted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the proper rate of tax in respect of the goods was much less than what had been remitted. The applicable statutory provision in that case was Section 18 dealing with zero-rating and upon consideration of the mater, this Court has expressed the view that the right of input tax credit, when the payment of tax per se is not disputed, is absolute. If the Revenue were to be extended the discretion to either restrict the claim of refund or a claim of input tax credit when the payment of tax was itself undisputed, then it would give rise to a case of unjust enrichment where having received the tax at a particular rate, the claim of ITC in that regard was restricted. Evidently, this cannot be so and for these reasons, the second ground is allowed.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1568 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Restoration of name of Appellant in the Registrar of Companies - striking off the name on the ground that the Appellant Company was not in operation and was not doing any business on the date of striking off of the name of the company - Appellate Tribunal held that the Appellant has failed to make out a just ground warranting interference with the impugned order which is neither shown to be legally infirm nor are the findings recorded therein shown to be erroneous, much less perverse.

  HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1567 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Condonation of delay in filing application - Grant of pay scale of Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher - application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the Appellant was either by fling an application of review or modification but since such application has been filed after two years of the order having been passed by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error was committed by the High Court as well.

  The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has been trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence of such training, the Respondent cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher entitled to the pay scale meant for such teachers. The classification based upon educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification.

  The order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1566 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - assignment of debt - validity of Assignment Agreement - privity of contract - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- A Financial Creditor falls under section 5(7) can file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a Corporate Debtor before this Adjudicating Authority when the default has occurred. No doubt the debt claimed is a financial debt as defined under section 5(8) of I & B Code. Herein this case Annexure 5 is found a legally executed assignment agreement. It is a registered document, stipulating all the terms and conditions. Annexure 5 proves that Financial Creditor is an assignee comes under the purview of section 5(7) of I & B code - The assignment of debt not at all affect the right of the principle borrower/corporate guarantor (Corporate Debtor in this case) and therefore, Corporate Debtor, being evident, does not have any right to object to the assignment of the debt by the lender.

  The rest of the allegations that Financial Creditor filed this petition with mala fide intention, that Financial Creditor suppressed material facts are all found not worthy for consideration. In an application of this nature, this Adjudicating Authority is bound firstly to consider as to whether there is existence of default from the records and information utility or based on other evidence furnished by the Financial Creditor. If the Financial Creditor succeeds in proving default of which the claim put forward by the Financial Creditor and satisfy Section 7(5)(a) of the I & B Code, this Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the application.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1565 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AMARAVATHI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational debt - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There was no representation from the Respondent, inspite of notices served on it and also paper publication. The respondent was set ex-parte on 18.07.2019, as the service of notice was held sufficient. There was no contest from the respondent with regard to the debt and to the interest claimed thereon. The debt claimed in the petition is an unpaid operational debt, as is clearly evident from the invoices and the notice under section 8 of the Code. The petition filed under Section 9(2) of the Code is complete in all respects. This Authority has thus no hesitation in admitting the petition.

  The Company Petition be and he same is admitted, ex parte - Moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1564 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make the repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - application filed by two applicants without having any inter-se agreement in between them - debt due and payable or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that duly sealed and signed promissory demand note was executed between the first applicant and respondent on 01.08.2012 for ₹ 35,00,00,000/-, placed at page No. 47 to the application, which clearly envisages that the loan amount along with interest @ 18% per annum shall be paid at the time of maturity by the corporate debtor on 30.09.2017. Copy of similar demand promissory note entered between the second applicant and the corporate debtor for a sum of ₹ 45,00,00,000/- dated 30.07.2012 is placed at page No. 52 to the application - the first and foremost objection raised by the corporate debtor that the application is barred by limitation is not sustainable.

  Maintainability of petition - petition is filed jointly without entering into any agreement between the first and second applicants - HELD THAT:- As per Section 7 (1), there is no bar in filing an application either by self or jointly with other. financial creditors. Thus, the second objection raised by the respondent is also not sustainable.

  Default in repayment of the financial debt has occurred or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of record it is found that on one hand the respondent has stated that the amount in question has not become payable and on the other hand respondent denies having taken any loan from the applicant. Record also shows that the respondent has been making continuous efforts to resolve the issue and has written number of letters to the applicants for purchasing time to make part payment.

  While going through the documents so filed by the petitioner, it is found that, corporate debtor admitted and acknowledged liability by letters of acknowledgement of debt/balance confirmation letters from time to time in favour of the petitioner - In the instant case, the documents produced by the Financial Creditor clearly establish the ‘debt’ and there is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the ‘financial debt’.

  The petitioner/financial creditor having fulfilled all the requirements of Section 7 of the Code, the instant petition deserves to be admitted - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1563 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Rejection of refund on the ground that the claim was filed filed after the period of one year - violation of time limitation as prescribed under N/N. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 read with N/N. 93/2008, dated 1-8-2008 - ambiguity in exemption notification - benefit of doubt to be available to assessee or to Revenue - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] framed the question of law only with respect to retrospective application of the amendment but also held that the amending notification must be read down to the extent it imposes a time limit for filing the refund claim. Evidently, if an importer resells the goods and files the refund claim within the period, they will be put to loss as he will be bearing both the burden of SAD and the VAT which he would pay while selling the goods.

  The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] on the other hand held that it is not open for the importer to pick and choose parts of the exemption notification that suits while ignoring those that don’t. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay also held that Special Additional Duty of Customs is also in the nature of customs duty and it is not a duty on sale of goods. It further held that the importer does not have any vested, let alone absolute right, for refund of the SAD.

  There were contrary decisions - the matter was referred to a Five-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] - the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CMS Info System [2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is consistent with the ratio of Dilip Kumar’s case, which is required to be followed, where it was held that When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue.

  The refund application of the importer beyond the time limit has been correctly rejected by the lower authorities - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1562 - SC ORDER
  

  Compounding of offence - violation of Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - HELD THAT:- As appellants states that the appellants have already deposited a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) on 2nd May, 2019 and that the interest amount due till the date of deposit @ 12% p.a. would be deposited within two weeks.

  Respondents state if the said amount is so deposited, the respondents would have no objection, in the given facts of the case, to compounding of the offence subject to any penalty which may be imposed under Section 24(2) of the said Act.

  In view of the facts set out herein and the age of the directors, despite the earlier reservation expressed by the respondents in the counter affidavit on account of the conduct of the appellants, we are inclined to compound the offence on the aforesaid amount being paid as assured before us by learned counsel for the appellants, subject to the penalty amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs). This amount should also be deposited with the Securities and Exchange Board of India within the same period of two weeks.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1561 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - "security" offered for the discharge of any debt or any liability or not - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The averment in the complaint does indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by the Accused to the complainant. The cheques were given by way of security, is a matter of defence. Further, it was not for the discharge of any debt or any liability is also a matter of defence. The relevant facts to countenance the defence will have to be proved - that such security could not be treated as debt or other liability of the accused. That would be a triable issue. This is because, handing over of the cheques by way of security per se would not extricate the Accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheques.

  Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that in view of the changed legal position, the complaint must now proceed before the Court at Ahmedabad. Even this contention may be pursued before the High Court in the remanded proceedings, which may be dealt with appropriately.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1560 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Validity of the assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- As noticed that the assessee in his written submissions dated 22.08.2016 stated that the search team had confronted the assessee with unauthentic document. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether any au then tic document was confronted to the assessee or not.

  AO so mentioned that a reference was made on 27.11.2012 but it is not clear for which purpose the said reference was made . So in the absence of clear facts on record, this issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated a fresh, in accordance with law after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee”. Since, the verbatim of the order, in the present case is also same, and in the absence of any change in the material facts, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the AO to adjudicate a fresh, in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1559 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  

  Cheating - business of doubling the amount or paying higher interest on the deposit made by complainants - power of Court to attach properties on default - is filing of charge sheet necessary for prosecution of the accused? - HELD THAT:- Section 7 provides for attachment of properties on default of return of deposits & power of special court regarding attachment. In sub-section 1 to 10 of Section 7, this Act provides as to what is the procedure to be followed for attachment of property - This section nowhere speaks that the charge sheet has to be filed by the competent authority, and for this purpose, Section 13 of the Act, 2005, provides that procedure prescribed for the warrant trial in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) shall be applicable and special court may take cognizance of the offence without being committed the case to it. It is clear from Section 13 of the Act, 2005 that for criminal proceeding, proceeding of warrant trial shall be applicable.

  The learned trial Court, in its detailed order, has wrongly interpreted Section 7 of the Act, 2005, which was only for attachment of properties and not for criminal trial - The learned trial Court, only on the basis that the charge sheet has not been filed by the competent authority, straightway discharged the respondents from Section 10 of the Act, 2005 wrongly interpreting the Statute, which cannot have affirmation by this Court and is liable to be set aside.

  The revision petitions are allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1558 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Income from house property - Enhancing the ALV of the let out property - CIT(A) computing the ALV of the School Building @ the rate of 8% of investment and in enhancing the ALV of the let out property and thereby enhancing the income - interest paid on secured loan, utilized for construction of school building in respect of which full rental income as included the computation of taxable income - Whether CIT(A) erred in invoking the provision of section 251(2) and adding to the taxable income being 50% of interest claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Both the above issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by in the case of same assessee for the A.Y. 2010-2011 [2018 (6) TMI 1280 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1557 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure of goods - alleged irregularities found in the documents accompanying the goods - HELD THAT:- List this matter on 31.10.2019.

  In the meantime, subject to deposit of security other than cash or bank guarantee or in the alternative accept an indemnity bond, equal to the value of tax and penalty, if any, to the satisfaction of seizing authority, the goods of the petitioner along with the vehicle may be released forthwith.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1556 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
  

  Seeking cancellation of the process of submission, finalisation and filing of the resolution plan for approval of this Adjudicating Authority - alleged non-disclosure of material facts - the resolution plan was already approved by the Committee of Creditors - terms of the Process Note was already agreed - role of Resolution Professional - Resolution plan is vitiated by misrepresentation and/or mutual mistake of fact - seeking stay on encashment of Bid Bond Guarantee - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the report, regarding the role of the Resolution Professional about the preparation of the Information memorandum, it is clear that Resolution Professional is duty-bound to provide the most updated information about the entity as accurately as is reasonably possible to this range of solution providers.

  It is also the duty of the Resolution Professional to prepare the Information Memorandum, in order for the prospective investors to provide solutions to keep the entity as a going concern, the information memorandum must be made available to potential financiers within a reasonable period of time and if the information is not comprehensive, the Resolution Professional must put out the Information Memorandum with a degree of completeness and the information that she is willing to certify. In the report, an example is also given that the part of the Information Memorandum; the Resolution Professional must clearly state the expected shortfall in the coverage of liabilities and assets of the entity presented in the Information Memorandum. The Resolution Professional also must make sure that the information is readily available to whosoever is interested in bidding, a solution for Insolvency Resolution Process - thus, Resolution Professional becomes the manager of the negotiation between the debtors and creditors in accessing the viability of the entity.

  The facts, information and material make it clear that Deccan Resolution Plan was based on misleading MM Report 2016 uploaded in VDR, and this has rendered the entire Resolution Plan un-viable, un-feasible and that cannot be successfully implemented. By subsequent event, there remains least possibility of getting the lease of sister concerns land i.e.Clover land,because of initiation of CIRP Process separately against the company Clover itself, for installation of 12500 MT Press , will also makes the Resolution Plan unviable.

  The IBC neither confers the power or jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority to compel specific performance of a plan by an unwilling resolution applicant. The letter and spirit of the I&B Code mandate the acceptance of only a viable and lawful resolution plan being implemented at the hands of a willing resolution applicant. Absence of these factors renders the Section 31 application liable to be rejected. The I&B Code envisages a scheme whereby the Corporate Debtor is taken over by the successful resolution applicant. This Scheme must contain a provision for its implementation and supervision under Section 30(2)(d) and as required by the proviso to Section 31(1).

  In the present case, undisputedly MM Report 2016 which contained,incorrect and unrealistic information, was uploaded on the VDR, which is created as a data centre to facilitate the resolution applicants to carry out their due diligence. The huge discrepancy in the vital and fundamental information such as the production capacity of the Corporate Debtor and financial information would undoubtedly raise questions on the credibility of the resolution plan - The resolution Professional cannot be said to have misrepresented any fact or misled the Resolution Applicant in any way as he has always represented and communicated the facts about the 2016 MM Report and has never represented otherwise. This conduct of Resolution Professional is also not controverted by the applicant. The Resolution Professional provided detailed financial information to all the potential resolution applicants with plant wise profit and loss statements, including specific classification of the revenue during those years into “Manufacturing” and “Trading / Metals” for the period between April 17 to September 17, as was made available to the Resolution Professional.

  Invocation of the Bid Bond Guarantee - HELD THAT:- The purpose of the Bid Bond Guarantee is to serve as security for adherence to conditions contained in the Process Note or Letter of Intent and it is invoked to penalise the applicants for their non-compliance. Every time the Bid Bond Guarantee is invoked, it is co-incident with the rejection of the applicant’s financial bid or the resolution plan. Invocation of Bid Bond Guarantee is a penal action as per the terms of the Process Note. The mere saving of the right of the CoC or the Resolution Professional to continue with the applicant’s Financial Bid or the Resolution Plan even after invocation of the Bid Bond Guarantee would not change the purpose of taking Bid Bond Guarantee neither the penal nature of invocation of the guarantee.

  The invocation of the Bid Bond Guarantee was on account of non-submission of performance guarantee by the successful Resolution Applicant. The CoC was within its rights to invoke the Bid Bond Guarantee as per the terms of the Process Document, Bid Bond Guarantee and Letter of Intent. However, this can’t be denied that information uploaded on VDR, which was the very basis of submission of the resolution plan was based on misinformation and was based on M. M. Report 2016, which was admittedly prepared for the particular purpose for invitation of investment.

  The Resolution Professional and the CoC is directed to invite the fresh offers within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order, and within 2 weeks thereafter, the Committee of Creditors shall take a final call in the matter and the decision of the Committee of Creditors and the offers received to be placed before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing for consideration - Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1555 - SC ORDER
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor - existence of dispute or not - It was held by NCLAT that The Appellant having not given any undertaking or made any specific reply and refused to say that they have no such intention, we are of the view that it is always open to the Adjudicating Authority to pass ad-interim order before admitting any application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 of the ‘I&B Code’ - HELD THAT:- No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the Tribunal.

  The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT
  

  MAT computation u/s 115JB - Substantial question of law - Admitted question regarding addition made in provision for bad and doubtful debts, revenue generated from trial run production and sales tax subsidy in computation of book profit u/s. 115JB - provision for Director's Retirement Benefit - excess expenditure on Voluntary Retirement - expenses on VRS pertaining to earlier years - addition made in respect of expenditure debited to P & L account - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1553 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Default in making payment of Excise Duty - bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit for making payment of Central Excise Duty during default period or not - constitutional validity of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and has held the portion of rule 8 (3A) as ultra vires.

  Thus, there is no bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit in making payment of Central Excise Duty even during default period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1552 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  SSI Exemption - use of brand name - period of dispute is from 01.03.2011 to 28.02.2013 - N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as amended vide Notification No.12/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 - HELD THAT:- The dispute involved in all the present appeals stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. RDB TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA-IV COMMISSIONERATE [2018 (2) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Apex Court had examined the wordings of the Notification as it stood during the disputed period and decided that the printing of the name, logo and other particulars of buyer, like, FCI and State Governments, were made by the manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Jute Control Order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the markings on jute bags were under compulsion of law and meant for identification, monitoring and control by Government Agencies and such markings cannot be considered as brand name.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1551 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Levy of penalty - Non-payment of service tax - service tax alongwith interest paid on being pointed out - Intellectual Property Service - HELD THAT:- The appellant assessee has already deposited the entire disputed service tax of ₹ 80,944/- and interest of ₹ 16,605/- on 10.12.2010 and the same has also been appropriated by the adjudicating authority.

  It is deemed appropriate to invoke the provision of Section 80 in respect of the penalties imposed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (9) TMI 1550 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - requirement to comply with the pre-deposit - petitioner's request to receive H forms was rejected - rejection on the ground that the H forms cannot be received after the assessment order is once passed - HELD THAT:- No tax is quantified under the endorsement. If only an appeal is filed against the assessment order, the petitioner is required to make a pre-deposit of part of the disputed tax. Since no tax is quantified under the endorsement, the insistence of the second respondent to pay 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal against endorsement is untenable - this view of the petitioner merits consideration.

  The second respondent is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner against the endorsement of the first respondent without insisting upon payment of 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax - Petition allowed.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 87