Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 14810 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 1345
  

  Waiver of Pre-deposit of Interest and Penalty u/s 11AB and 11AC of Central Excise Act,1944 – Duty and interest amount already paid – Held that:- The applicants have themselves accepted the duty liability and paid the entire amount of duty without any protest - the interest on the said amount of duty is payable – the appellant directed to deposit the entire amount of interest – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1344
  

  Difference in the quantity of the granulated slag shown in their Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-I Return - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima facie, without any corroborative evidence, it would be difficult to accept the difference in the quantities of granulated slag between the two statements, were the quantity cleared without payment of duty - the Applicant is able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of amount – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1343
  

  Determination of assessable value - Goods processed/manufactured on job work basis – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Held that:- The arrangement was processing/manufacturing of goods on job work basis and the job-worked goods were to be assessed in accordance with the principles laid down in Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2000 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – the processed/manufactured goods be assessed to duty at the price at which it was sold by Applicant No.2 - the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and would be considered at the time of disposal of the Appeal - Applicant No.1 directed to deposit Rupees seventy-five as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1342
  

  SSI Exemption - Brand Name – Mentioning of logo on the goods – Held that:- The goods R-Core Transformers manufactured are having a sticker with description "manufactured by Instruments & Electronics, Bhopal in Technical Collaboration with SEL" and also showing the logo of M/s. SEL - The fact is that the logo of SEL mentioned on the goods indicates a connection between the goods manufactured by the respondents with the Silcher Electronics Ltd. – Following COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY Versus GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.[2005 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - in context of trade name, a name or any writing would cover the name of the company so long as it is used in relation to the product and is used for the purpose of indicating the connection in course of trade between the product and the other person - The logo indicates a connection between the M/s. SEL and the goods manufactured by the asseessee and they are not entitled to the small Scale exemption.

  Extended period of limitation on interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the central excise act 1944 – Held that:- Assessee continued to use of logo of SEL up to Mar, 99 - statement given under section 14 of the Act by the partner of the respondents was not true and he suppressed the facts - The Original Authority has rightly invoked extended period and imposed the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act – R-Core Transformers manufactured by the Respondent and which were being cleared by them by affixing the brand name and logo of their collaborator "SEL, Baroda" were not eligible for SSI exemption and extended limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is applicable to the facts of this case - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1341
  

  Application for Restoration of appeal – Clearance from the Committee on Disputes not taken – Held that:- The Board has decided not to pursue the matter and the same was also not listed before the COD for clearance at the relevant time and hence not pending –thus, the question of restoration of appeal does not arise at all - the application for Restoration of Appeal is not maintainable – Decided against Applicant.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1340
  

  Penalty under Rule 25 (1) (d) and Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Bogus invoice issued without selling the goods – Held that:- Just because the show cause notice invoked sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 which could not be invoked, invoking of a wrong rule would not initiate, the show cause notice as the show cause notice clearly alleges that the appellant had issued a bogus invoice without supplying any material to enable his customer or fraudently avail the Cenvat credit and sought imposition of penalty for the offence – Following Vee Kay Enterprises vs. CCE2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] – penalty would be attracted under Rule 25 (1) (d) as well as Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1339
  

  Denial of cenvat credit – goods not received on the dates when credit taken – Held that:- The goods had subsequently been received, as the goods covered by the invoice No. 62, dated 31-10-2005 on the basis of which the credit was taken on 31-10-2005, had been received on 3-11-2005 and the goods covered by the invoice Nos. 91 and 92 each dated 31-12-2005 on the basis of which Cenvat credit had been taken on 31-12-2005, had been received on 3-1-2006 - When the goods were received in the factory, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied – thus, the department can charge only the interest as irregularly taken credit – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1338
  

  Maintainability of Appeal – Held that:- The order was communicated to the appellants with a preamble in which the appellants were informed that an appeal against said order lies to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi - now Revenue cannot claim that no appeal can be filed against the order before the Tribunal - the demand has been confirmed on addition of pre-delivery inspection charges and also after sale service charges collected by the dealers and the issue was decided against them holding that duty is chargeable on the pre-delivery inspection charges and after sale service charges - The appellants had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for decision in the Supreme Court - To keep the matter alive on merits, the appellants have right to file an appeal before this Tribunal against the order - the request of the Revenue for non-maintainability of appeal cannot be accepted.

  Waiver of Pre-deposit – Payment of Interest – Held that:- The appellants have not claimed any financial hardship and the claim for financial hardship is a determining factor for deciding the quantum of pre-deposit and not for giving time for making pre-deposit - the contention of the Revenue that since no financial hardship was claimed by the appellants, ten weeks time was not required to be given to them cannot be accepted - The appellant has undertaken to make the payment of interest payable on the confirmed duty in the time limit given by the Tribunal in the stay order.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1337
  

  Transfer of the unutilized and accumulated cenvat credit - Inputs as well as the capital goods lying in the records – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- As per Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is a beneficial piece of legislation allowing transfer of unutilized credit to the new assessee to whom the business stands transferred - The present assessee has undoubtedly been given central excise licence and has taken over all the liability of M/s Mound Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - all the assets in the shape of credit of the previous manufacturer have to be transferred to the appellant - The objection raised by Revenue on technical ground cannot be appreciated in the absence of any dispute of availability of credit to the appellant – thus, pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1336
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Reversal of cenvat credit availed - Held that:- appellant has paid approximately Rs. 82 lakhs as duty on the final products clear from their factory premises. This has not been denied by the adjudicating authority. If that be so, in our considered view, the discharge of duty liability by the main appellant-company would amount to reversal of cenvat credit, if any, as held by the adjudicating authority being ineligible to the appellant. Prima facie, we are convinced that the appellant has made out a case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1335
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - Goods manufactured and cleared at nil rate of duty - Held that:- as per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules the applicant are liable to pay 10% of price in respect of goods cleared at nil rate of duty. In the present case, the demand is in respect of chhilka etc. which is a waste product generated during the manufacture of malt and malt extract - Pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1334
  

  Imposition of penalty - Demand of tax - Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in setting aside the assessment order on the ground that dyeing does not involve any sale of goods since levying tax on service charges attributing that dyes and chemicals are transferred during the time of processing is improper - Held that:- Since by the operation of law, the transfer of goods involved in works contract would amount to 'sale' taxable under Section 3-B. The assessee therein had purchased the dyes and chemicals from outside the State - there was no suppression of sale in the turnover - Following decision of ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2001 (1) TMI 248 - Supreme court of India] and RAINBOW COLOUR LAB AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER [2000 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1333
  

  Rectification of mistake - Tribunal held that the petitioner is not a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act - Wrong mention of Gujarat Sales Tax Act instead of Gujarat Value Added Tax - Tribunal rejected rectification application - Held that:- there is an obvious mistake committed by the tribunal in considering the case of the appellant under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act - tribunal ought to have rectified the mistake and as such ought to have reviewed and recalled the order passed in Appeal No. 11/2006 and ought to have restored Appeal No. 11/2006 on file and ought to have decided the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits - matter is remanded to the tribunal to decide Appeal No. 11/2006 afresh in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1332
  

  Denial of refund claims - Refund in connection with export of the goods under Notification No.41/2007 - Limitation period enhanced from the 'relevant date' the Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Whether these refund claims would be governed by the Notification No.17/2009-ST and the limitation period prescribed therein or would be governed by Notification No.41/2007-ST and limitation period of six months prescribed therein - Held that:- Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 had been issued in supersession of the Notification No.41/2007-ST and at the time of filing of refund claim, it is this Notification was in force. In terms of the Board's Circular No.354/256/2009-TRU dated 1.1.2010, new Notification No.17/2009-ST does not bar its applicability to the exports that have taken place prior to its issuance and, therefore, the scheme prescribed under Notification No.17/2009-ST would be applicable even for such exports subject to conditions that refund claims are filed within the stipulated period of one year and no previous refund claims have already been filed under the previous notification.

  conditions prescribed in the Board's Circular are satisfied inasmuch as the refund claims had been filed within one year from the relevant date and there were no refund claims filed under the previous Notification. The impugned order rejecting the refund claims on the ground that same should have been filed under previous notification and within limitation period prescribed therein is therefore not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - while holding the refund claims have been correctly filed under new Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and are within time, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for deciding returns of the considering the eligibility of the services for refund in terms of the notification - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1331
  

  Stay application - Service tax payable on the service of unloading of coal from the ship to the hoppers kept on the port-docks - Held that:- Since at some stage the applicant was taking Cenvat credit on the input services it would prima facie appear that the impugned services availed by them is input service for applicant rather than a reimbursable expense. A final view in the matter can be taken during final hearing of the matter. What we find is that the service tax demand confirmed is Rs.5,78,92,139/- against the applicant. According to the applicant, they are eligible for credit of about Rs.5,74,12,309/- not yet utilized. So, we direct the applicant to deposit the entire amount of service tax demanded which can be very easily complied with because according to her own submission they have credit of Rs.5,74,12,309/- as input service credit. The principle is accepted by the impugned order though quantum is not verified. If there is any dispute in the figure, this can be reviewed at the time of reporting compliance - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1330
  

  Stay Application - Free service provided during the warranty period - Benefit of exemption notification No.12/03-ST - Held that:- The entire dispute arises out of the fact that this service being provided is commonly referred to in this industry as free service. This is not free service at all. This is rendered at a cost both for the services and for the parts which are paid by the manufacturer to the appellant. However, the owner of vehicle is one of the beneficiaries of the activity. The vehicle manufacturer is also a beneficiary because such services enhances his brand value and the reputation of his goods and customer satisfaction which helps in further business. So the manufacturer pays for it and naturally it is a service provided to the manufacturer of vehicles. Similarly the person who pays for the parts is the person to whom goods are sold. Therefore, we are of the view that there is sale of goods in this case and the benefit of exemption notification No.12/03-ST dt. 20.6.2003 is prima facie available to the applicant - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1329
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - on the ground that the appellant is not eligible for availing abatement of 75% of the value of the freight charges, as they have not given the declaration on the consignment notes as required by law - It is undisputed in these four cases the question is of eligibility to 75% abatement of the freight charges by the goods transport agency a service provider - Held that: even Board Circular No. 37B also indicates that the procedure prescribed in the Board Circular, is that a declaration by the service provider, in all such cases, on the consignment note, to the effect that the conditions of the aforesaid exemption notification have been satisfied, would be sufficient for availing of the benefit under the said notifications - The Tribunal in the case of IOCL Vs. CCE [2011 (7) TMI 741 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] has taken a prima facie view that declaration given by the transport operators in a consolidated manner should serve the purpose and declaration on each consignment note need not be insisted upon - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1328
  

  Cenvat credit on Goods Transport Agency services – goods exported out of India – Held that:- In case of export goods are contracted on FOB basis under which responsibility of the delivery of exported goods, till the same are put on board, is with the exporter of goods - it has been rightly held by the Commissioner (A) that for goods meant for export the place of removal of goods will be the port of export and not the factory gate - the place of removal in case of FOB based export has to be treated as port of export - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1327
  

  Stay application - Classification of service - Rule 3(i)(iii) of Export of Service Rules 2005 - Held that:- The services provided by the assessee throughout during the period of dispute are classifiable as "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the same have been exported in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(1) (iii) read with Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules 2005 and hence no service tax is payable - Following decision of M/s Paul Merchants Limited & Others Versus CCE, Chandigarh [2012 (12) TMI 424 - CESTAT, DELHI (LB)] - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1326
  

  Demand of service tax - Service not disclosed in adjudication order - Held that:- show cause notice does not show what was the service provided by the appellant. The adjudicating authority also did not whisper about the nature of service which caused demand - appellate authority did not find whether the liability arose out of adjudication related to that service. Without a foundation in show cause notice, orders of the authorities below failed to get approval by judicial scrutiny - adjudication is to be confined to the tax and interest paid by the appellant. There shall be no penalty at all under any of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. Even it would not be proper to penalize the appellant under Sections 76 and 78, when the first appellate authority waived the penalty under Section 77 itself - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

1 ....181920212223242526........ 741