|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 655 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , under Section 35C (1) of the Central Excise Act, to do a particular thing within specified parameters and is satisfied, in due course of time, that its direction has been flouted, it can intervene under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) rules and pass such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its direction and to secure the ends of justice, unless its direction has been stayed by High Court or Supreme Court. If this power is not exercised in an appropriate case, the departmental authority concerned may arrogate to itself the unwarranted freedom of pushing the assessee into repeated rounds of litigation. 4. I find that in the present case, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with certain directions and in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal, an appealable order has been passed by the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the application, the same is dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 621 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court and is unable to produce the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The recording of satisfaction was not produced by the revenue even before the Tribunal. 3. Quite clearly, this case is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari’s case (supra). 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT
Whether no balance stock and even for its own requirement, it has to import molasses?
Whether the allegation of the respondents is that excess and balance molasses was available with the appellant which it had sold in open market?
-
2007 (9) TMI 619 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Extended period of limitation - Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they have suppressed the income shown in the Income Tax returns and hence the larger period was invoked - Held that: - Revenue has proceeded against the appellants on the basis of the Income Tax returns. The fact of the details has been disclosed in the Income Tax returns which indicates that there was no suppression of facts - Prima facie, the appellants have strong case to succeed on time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (9) TMI 618 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 31-3-1997. It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for reopening on 4-11-1997 and issued the notice for reopening of the assessment on 20-11-1997. 5. The reasons for reopening the assessment have been recorded in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no allegation whatsoever therein that the assessee had failed to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal accordingly came to the conclusion that the action initiated by the revenue under section 147/148 was barred by limitation. It may be noted that relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the Tribunal had, under the circumstances, passed a similar order. 6. We find that this is a pure question of fact. In our opinion, the facts that have been referred hereinabove, there is no perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 7. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Jindal Power was licensed to distribute electricity at any time? Without securing a license is it permissible for Jindal Power to distribute Power?
Whether Jindal Power could claim that it is a deemed licensee entitled to distribute power after coming into force of The Electricity Act, 2003?
-
2007 (9) TMI 616 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... et-tation. In our view consultancy services would involve rendering of professional services and therefore the contention that the services provided by the assessee in this case does not qualify as technical or professional services, does not merit acceptance. 11. On the question whether the services have been rendered from India or in India, as already noticed the clarification issued by the CBDT categorically states that as long as the services are provided to a foreign entity, the mere fact that the information used or services rendered is utilized in India would not describe (sic) the provider of the services to the deduction under section 80-O of the Act. In any event there are concurrent findings both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the services rendered by the assessee in the instant case are from India. We find no infirmity in the said conclusion arrived at by the two authorities. 12. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 615 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... oned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on facts.
-
2007 (9) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the grant of bail by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the respondent who was charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 8, 15, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 incorrect?
-
2007 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ickness in excess of 0.24 mm. We, therefore, set aside this demand as unsustainable”. It can be seen from the above reproduced order of the Tribunal, that the credit of the duty, as plates having thickness of 0.30 mm and thinner 0.45 mm and thinner, were available to the assessee. In the current appeal by the Revenue before us, the case of the assessee is on a stronger footing. The allegation of the show cause notice itself does not enthuse confidence that the assessee could not have used the tin plates as mentioned in Annexure “B-3”. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the respondent had not received the said tin plates as mentioned at Annexure”B-3”. 6. As such, we find that the very same order-in-original in respect of an identical allegation has been set aside by the Tribunal in the respondent’s own case. Respectfully, following the same, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal is rejected.
-
2007 (9) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act?
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?
Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 as alleged is executed between the parties?
Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 is forged and fabricated? If so, to what effect.
Whether the defendant is the owner of property No. 598/1, Gali Kaitwali, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi?
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession and injunction prayed for?
-
2007 (9) TMI 611 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e question of claiming export rebate arises when the goods are actually exported. 3. It is nobody’s case that part of the raw material was not exported or that the export rebate was claimed on the goods for a quantity other than that was actually exported. It was sought to be contended that claim of Cenvat credit at the first instance itself was fraudulent as the respondents were aware that they were not going to use the goods for manufacture and the real intention of the respondent was to claim Cenvat credit on the exported goods. The facts indicate that a part of the goods was in fact utilised for manufacture. It is possible to envisage situations where the goods procured for the use as input may become surplus for variety of reasons, but it cannot be automatically said that procurement of excess raw material would, by itself, render the claim of Cenvat credit as fraudulent. 4. In the circumstances, we find no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 610 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l of the container till that date and after realizing the aforesaid amount so to be calculated either by deduction from the sale proceeds lying in the hands of the port authority or by debitting the amount. The petitioner/appellant is entitled to all costs and expenses if incurred by them, for sale in terms of order of the Court. The port authority shall pay the same first, thereafter, from the balance amount demurrage charge as above shall be realized. If there be any surplus, the same shall be kept deposited without lien or charge. There will be no order as to costs. 30. After calculation, in terms of this judgment and order, if any amount is found to be payable by the writ petitioner/appellant, the writ petitioner/appellant shall pay the same in terms of the undertaking given to this Court. If nothing is found payable, then undertaking, so given, shall stand discharged automatically. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicants.
-
2007 (9) TMI 609 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the context of the Regulations governing the service conditions of the respondent, the recovery of the aforementioned amount and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and if so, the order of punishment is vitiated on any of the grounds noted above, warranting interference by the Court?
-
2007 (9) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT
Whether or not the sugar factory of the appellant has been adversely affected is essentially a question of fact and cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution?
Whether the impugned action of granting licence to respondent No. 4 by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is mala fide?
-
2007 (9) TMI 607 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amount is collected by the petitioner from its customer as Entry Tax, the same shall be allowed to be retained by him on proof that the burden of its has not been passed on to buyers, consumers or users. If the burden has been so passed on to such other persons, the same shall be paid by the petitioner to the State Treasury within a month failing which such amount shall be recoverable from him. Likewise, any amount already paid by the petitioner as Entry Tax shall be refunded to him on proof of the fact that burden thereof has not been passed on to users, consumers or buyers of such goods, as the case may be, as aforesaid. The petitioner may lay his claim for refund with required proof before the concerned Assessing Authority under Commercial Taxes Department. No order as to costs.” In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this court, the present revision petition has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (9) TMI 606 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... utset after obtaining instructions from the appellant stated that the appellant is prepared to deposit the duty of ₹ 4,09,511.00 within a period of four weeks from today. Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents has very clearly stated that he has no objection if the appellant deposits the aforesaid amount within the aforesaid period as a condition for restoration of the appeal. 4. In view of the fair stand taken by Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, we dispose of this appeal finally with the direction to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of four weeks from today. If the appellant deposits the amount within the stipulated period, the Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. It is made clear that in case of default in complying with the condition of this order, the present appeal shall stand dismissed automatically. 5. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (9) TMI 605 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rmission is required as to verify the stocks lying with the assessee if required. 5. The appellant filed declaration and in the declaration they declared some quantity of grey fabric in transit. There is no indication regarding name of transporter etc. As per notification, the deemed credit of duty is available on such inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in the finished products lying in stock as on 31-3-2003. In the present case, the deemed credit was denied in respect of goods regarding which no declaration by giving address of the premises where such stock was kept. It is merely mentioned in transit which cannot be verified without specific particulars given by the appellant. Therefore, as the goods were not in stock on the specified date, therefore, the credit was rightly denied. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalties are set aside. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 604 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Rewa Plant Vs. CCE reported in 2003 (159) ELT 553 held that welding electrodes are not entitled for credit as capital goods as well as inputs. Hence the demand is upheld. As the issue is settled by the Larger Bench, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 603 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ecessary declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that appellant failed to show that they had filed necessary declarations in respect of capital goods before taking credit and now the appellant produced photo copy of the declarations. In respect of shape and sections, the contention is that these are used as component, part of digestor. The finding of the adjudicating authority is that the appellant had not furnished any evidence in support of their contention for actual use of these items. In these circumstances, as the appellant now produced copy of declarations and in respect of shapes and sections, the contention is that these are used as parts of digestor. Therefore, matter requires reconsideration, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
............
|
