|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 654 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ority. Thereafter, a Civil Petition was filed before this Court and on the direction of this Court, the CEGAT has formulated the question of law for our consideration. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad, reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 117 (S.C.) has held that Pollution Control apparatus/device used in the effluent treatment plant has to be treated as part and parcel of the manufacturing process for production of the end product in view of the Pollution Control Act and held that Modvat has to be granted to such plants and machineries also. 6. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the petition does not arise for our consideration as the question of law framed by the Tribunal has already been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT
Whether defendant was attempting to defeat any decree that many be passed by shifting his machinery?
Whether plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case?
-
2007 (11) TMI 610 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Applicability of section 80IA(3) - Offshore drilling - claim made in respect of section 33AC - Whether the 'Deep Sea Mat drill' purchased by the assessee is a ship or not - We are of the opinion that only one view is possible, namely, that the 'Deep Sea Matdrill' is a ship. Even if learned counsel for the revenue is right in contending that the 'Deep Sea Matdrill' is not a ship, we do not think that exercise of power u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT would be justified only because the assessing officer has taken a view in favour of the assessee. The law requires the view to be erroneous and that has not been substantiated by learned counsel for the revenue .
Deduction u/s 80-IA(3) - We find that under section 148 of the Act, the assessing officer had specifically mentioned in the reasons recorded that he was prima facie of the view that the vessel had been used in the Indian territorial waters prior to its acquisition by the assessee. A response was given by the assessee to the notice in which it was categorically mentioned that the ship was never used in India so deduction u/s 80-IA(3) could not be denied to the assessee.
In all the three issues that have been urged by learned counsel for the revenue , no substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 609 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... at credit. This issue was the subject matter of dispute in the case of Rochi Ram & Sons (cited supra). In the said case, the Tribunal has ruled that Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed if the assessee manufactures for a part of the year only exempted goods when it has all along the intention to manufacture both exempted and dutiable goods. In other words, the period cannot be segregated into two parts. It was further held that Rule 57AD(2) of erstwhile CE Rules (Present Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules), does not require the assessee to manufacture, on day to day basis, both dutiable and exempted goods. In our view, the above ruling of the Tribunal is applicable to the present case. Hence, Cenvat credit is not deniable on that count.” By following the ratio of the above decision, I find no justification for denying the modvat credit. 3. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 608 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... find any specific finding on this plea by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I deem it proper to send this matter for de-novo consideration. 7. Learned advocate made submission that even if duty was payable, by denying the benefit of notification No.214/86 for the goods manufactured on job work basis, the duty so paid should be available as credit at their end and therefore it was a Revenue neutral exercise and therefore he submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that larger period should be invoked, is not correct. Since the matter is being remanded to the original authority to consider the eligibility of Notification No.214/86, I am leaving this issue of invoking extended period open to be considered afresh by the original authority. 8. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for de-novo consideration after hearing the appellant. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 607 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Revenue is that as the respondent had not used the inputs found short in the factory for the manufacture of final product, therefore, are not entitled for the credit in respect of such inputs. 4. The contention of the respondent is that from the mines, the concentrate is transported in the dumper and at the time of clearance of concentrate from the mines, it is wet condition and during transportation, therefore, minor difference comes of due to loss of moisture contents during transportation. The respondent relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case i.e. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2004 (172) ELT 244. In the present case, as the transit losses are less than 0.05 which are negligible and there is no evidence on record to show that respondent had diverted the duty paid inputs with intent to evade payment of duty. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iew that since the said transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference. Hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly we dismiss the above tax case." 6. The abovesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the present casein all force. In the case on hand, it was not the case of the revenue that the assessee received cash as loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS. The deposit and the withdrawal of the money from the current account not be considered as a loan or advance. A factual finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee claimed that the cash was received on account of sale and the same was shown as trade credit. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed as no question of law, much less a substantial question of law is involved.
-
2007 (11) TMI 605 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Act. In regard to the taxation on the capital gain is concerned, the same cannot be treated as a profit form business and it is an income by selling the shares of the company , Therefore , it has to be treated as a capital gain and accordingly , it has to be taxed under section 112 of the Act. The tribunal is justified in holding that section 112 would attract for the purpose of taxation In regard to question No. 2 is concerned, this court in ITA no. 2416/2005 dated 31.1.2006 has considered the said question and held against the revenue. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal answered in the question of law against the revenue.
-
2007 (11) TMI 604 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... wer plant operator, into these services. The position seems to be similar in the present case also. It is also noticed that the assessee in this case was paying service tax in the category of maintenance and repairs during the period of dispute, albeit by excluding certain elements from the Gross Taxable Value. It is also noteworthy that the factum of exclusion of cost of materials was clearly discernible from the relevant invoices. In the circumstances, prima facie, there is a point in the counsel’s submission that there was no suppression by the assessee. 5. For the reasons briefly recorded above, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the tax and penalty amounts. 6. Having regard to the high stake involved in the case, we are inclined to accept the SDR’s prayer for early posting of the appeal. Learned Counsel has no objection. The appeal is accordingly posted to 29-1-2008 for hearing. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 603 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital gain - acquisition of land - Determining the assessment year - exigible to tax - HELD THAT:- Till the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was required to invest the capital gain in the specified securities, like capital gain bonds issued from time to time or in a residential house under the various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from section 54 onwards within the time specified therein as computed from the date of transfer. It is obvious that in order to invest the money in the specified items, the assessee must first receive the money. Therefore, accepting the contention of the department would mean depriving the assessee of those benefits or tax relief in all cases where section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been applied.
The only case which deals with the situation where section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been invoked in Nawab Mahmood Jung Bahadur’s case [1987 (11) TMI 61 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. Apparently, in that case, the possession of the land was taken on 12-1-1967 and because section 17 had been invoked, therefore, the award was given on 2-11-1970. The revenue wanted to tax the capital gain in the assessment year 1973-74. This plea was turned down and the questions were answered in favour of the assessee. The said decision does not take into account the aforementioned consequences. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
We, therefore, hold that for the assessment year 1984-85, that is before the 1991 amendment was made, the ITAT was justified in holding that no capital gain is exigible to tax in assessment year 1984-85 on the facts and circumstances of the case. The application of the department under section 256(2) is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the ingredients of adverse possession have not been satisfied by the defendant and hence the plaintiff's suit deserves to be decreed, since admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute?
-
2007 (11) TMI 601 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f sugar. This is a statutory obligation. The applicant relied upon the stay order dated 3-7-2006 in the case of Nawanshahr Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd v. CCE, Jalandhar - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 144 (Tri.) where on similar ground, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of amount of tax and penalty. 3. In view of the above stay order, pre-deposit of amount of Service tax and penalty is waived. The stay petition is allowed. 4. The registry is directed to list this appeal along with ST/Appeal Nos. 132-136/2006. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 upheld?
-
2007 (11) TMI 599 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Payments made in cash in excess - within the exception clause, rule 6DD(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 or Not - Disallowance of addition u/s 40A(3) - CIT confirming the assessment revised u/s 154 - HELD THAT:- The contention of the petitioner is that payments were made to the account of the suppliers maintained with State Bank of Mysore and Hassan District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. Counsel for the petitioner contended that all these banks come under clause (ii) of sub-rule (a) of rule 6DD and, therefore these two payments are eligible for exemption from disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act.
I am in agreement with the contention of counsel for the respondents because the protection under clause (a) of rule 6DD is available only if the payments are made to any of the institutions referred to thereunder. Obviously in order to qualify for the benefit of rule 6DD(a) the beneficiary of the payee should be an institution referred to therein.
Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that payments to any beneficiary in the account maintained in the banks referred to in rule 6DD(a) is also covered by the exception, I do not think the same can be accepted because, some of the institutions referred to in the rule, namely, Reserve Bank of India, State Financial Corporations, Industrial Development Corporation and other financial institutions are not engaged in banking operations.
Therefore, rule 6DD(a) applies only for payments to institutions referred to therein and not for payment made to any party’s account maintained in the institutions referred to therein. In the circumstances, I reject the contention of the petitioner and uphold Ext. P6 order of the CIT confirming the assessment revised u/s 154 of the Act.
O.P. is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
-
2007 (11) TMI 598 - SC ORDER
Refund - Unjust enrichment - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus VARDHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD. [2005 (8) TMI 543 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable against the same refund - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 597 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Pre-deposit - CENVAT credit - Held that: - the issue is contentious. The appellants should pre-deposit Rs. one lakh within a period of one month and report compliance on 7th January 2008.
-
2007 (11) TMI 596 - SC ORDER
SSI Exemption – Cenvat/Modvat – Appellants manufacture goods on their own account, as well as on job work basis for third party under their brand name – Good cleared by availing benefits – the decison in the case of NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2006 (8) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] contested, where it was held that No infirmity in availment of benefit - Held that: - appeal admitted - hearing expedited.
-
2007 (11) TMI 595 - SC ORDER
Principles of Natural justice - Held that: - Considering the fact that the appeal before the CESTAT was decided ex parte, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to CESTAT to hear the matter afresh - appeal disposed off.
-
2007 (11) TMI 594 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ured was admittedly used within the plant. In the circumstances, the only error if it can be termed to be so, committed by the Tribunal is mentioning of incorrect provision namely Rule 57B, instead of Rule 57AD read with definition of ‘input’ under Rule 57AA(d).” 5. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. From the judgments cited by the learned advocate, the view that emerges is that in respect of fuel, the cenvat credit rules has made special dispensation; inputs are required to be used within the factory of generation of electricity where the credit has been taken;, use of surplus electricity in other units of the same company or its subsidiary, should not lead the denial of credit taken and availed by the unit generating electricity. 7. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated & pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 593 - SC ORDER
Manufacturer - Loan licensee - Job work - the decision in the case of COSME REMEDIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA [2006 (3) TMI 564 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] contested - Held that: - appeal admitted.
............
|
