Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (5) 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 141 to 160 of 645 Records

• 2007 (5) TMI 552 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Section 68 - Cash credits

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urt reproduced above, stand confirmed by the Apex Court and, therefore, the principle which emerges is that no addition to section 68 can be made in the investment in the share capital of a company limited by shares whether public or private. 8. It may be mentioned here that the Apex Court had decided the Civil Appeal and had not passed the order while considering the Special Leave Petition. While deciding the Special Leave Petition, it may not have amounted to confirmation of the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court but as the Apex Court has decided the Civil Appeal expressing in agree- ment with the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court, it would amount to confirmation of the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court. 9. In view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for further enquiries and ought to have decided the appeal on merits. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 550 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on face of record

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t the appellant did not have knowledge or intention in wrongly availing the Cenvat credit. In the light of the overall evidence and taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it has been categorically held that the invoices raised by M/s. Muskan Prints based on which the appellant-manufacturer had taken credit is not valid for the purpose of taking credit by the appellant. It was also directed that the appellant was required to pay duty and interest as demanded by the original authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. Granting benefit of doubt that the appellant might not be in collusion with the non-existing Muskan Prints, the penalty was totally set aside. I do not find any mistake apparent on the record of the case. Further the order passed by the Tribunal was an appealable order. In the light of the above, I do not find any merits in the application for rectification of mistake. The application is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 549 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ppeal papers were not readily traceable in the registry. The Department has since filed the appeal papers seeking for restoration of the appeal. The application is allowed and restore to its original number and posted for hearing on 22nd June, 2007. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 548 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Documents for taking credit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the appellant himself. 5.2 emsp As regards consignments covered by other bills of entry, the claim that they are imported by the appellant on a ldquo high sea sale rdquo basis is not proved. The high sea purchaser steps into the shoes of importer and has to file bills of entry with the custom. As the bills of entry are not in the name of appellant, this claim is not acceptable on extraneous grounds. Commissioner rsquo s finding in this regard is legally sustainable. 6. emsp In the light of the above, appeal is partly allowed in so far as the credit claimed in respect of bills of entry No. 2088 and 7283 is concerned subject to confirmation by the original authority that the consignments covered by both these bills were originally covered by the show cause notice. Appeal in respect of consignments covered by other bills of entry are rejected. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is set aside. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 547 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Interest - Delay in refund

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot brought out any valid grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no finding in the order of original authority about the admissibility or otherwise of interest and if due the date from which the same is payable. In the absence of any evidence on submission of claim with details and in the absence of any finding in this regard, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted. 5. emsp Further, the learned Consultant claimed that the adjustment of the refund claim towards pending arrears was incorrect and they were not put to notice. This contention is also not acceptable. The original authority has clearly indicated in his order dated 20-4-05, the details of orders under which the amounts were pending from the appellant which were adjusted. The appellant has not contested seriously that the amounts shown as arrears were not due from them. 6. emsp In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 546 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand - SSI exemption - Clubbing of clearances

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Gases v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 474 (T). 7. emsp After having gone through the case carefully, we find that learned adjudicating authority has clearly held that all these three units were functioning independently prior to imposition of excise duty on the product manufactured by them. He has clearly held that statutory and private records, have been maintained by the respondents separately and that two of the respondents are private limited companies and third one is a partnership firm. 8. emsp To our mind, Board rsquo s circular dt. 29-5-92 squarely applies to the facts of this case and we also agree with the findings of learned Commissioner that there is no evidence on record to show that all the 3 units were floated to avail the ineligible benefits of SSI. The findings given by the learned adjudicating authority are just and legal and do not require any interference. 9. emsp Accordingly, we dismiss all the three appeals filed by Revenue. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 545 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty - Delay in payment - Compounded levy scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Jai Hanuman Synthax Ltd. (Appeal No. E/674/03) and M/s. Jai Baba Dyeing and Printing Industry (Appeal No. E/675/03) is partially allowed by enhancing the penalties in each case to Rs. 5,000/-. The other appeals by the Department for enhancement of penalties are rejected. (c) The appeal No. E/393/03 of M/s. Navjivan Synthetics is partially allowed and penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 4,60,000/-. (d) The appeal No. E/586/03 of M/s. Bindal Silk Mills is partially allowed and penalty reduced to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 4,60,000/-. (e) The appeal No. E/523/03 of M/s. Geetha Prints Ltd. is partially allowed by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 2,63,000/-. (f) The appeal No. E/616/03 of M/s. Balaji Processors Pvt. Ltd. is partially allowed by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5000/- from Rs. 60,000/-. (g) The Appeal No. E/560/03 of M/s. Ashoka Dyg and Ptng. Partially allowed and the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 77,400/-. (Pronounced in Court on 15-5-2007)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 544 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Confiscation of conveyance - Habitual offender

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nvoices accompanying such goods turned to be fictitious. The truck which was carrying the goods of fictitious consignor was also confiscated and the same was permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-. 4. emsp There is a clear findings of the Original Authority that this transporting company was habitually indulging in booking consignments in the names of fictitious consignors. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that more and more incidences of similar nature involving the same transporter has come to his notice. Such repeated occurrences cannot be considered to be without the knowledge of the transporting company as such a view leads to undesirable consequences. Therefore, confiscation is upheld. However, taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine imposed is reduced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). 5. emsp The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 543 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund - Returned goods viz. medicaments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion in Form D3 on 23-2-96 they maintained Form V register. Subsequently, they cleared on payment of duty after the reprocessing was undertaken and claimed refund of duty paid by them originally. The original authority rejected the refund claim. Commissioner (Appeals) taking note of the facts that the respondent has filed the D3 declaration, maintained Form V register, and that the evidence regarding transport of the goods from customers to factory was produced, allowed the appeal. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned DR. In the case of Appeal No. E/400/00, Commissioner has remanded the matter for examination by the original authority. In the case of Appeal No. 864/00, the Commissioner has given detailed reasons why he allowed the party rsquo s appeal. No valid reasons have been adduced to interfere with the findings and reasonings given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp Therefore, the appeals are rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 542 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs, shortage of inputs - Penalty - Personal penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s been wrongly taken. Or, the inputs have been received and the credit has been taken, but the inputs have subsequently been cleared to the godown as claimed by them. Even if this claim is to be conceded, such clearances of the inputs received into the factory on which credit has been taken, should not have been effected without reversal of the credit. Therefore, the claim that the goods were lying at another place having been made after actual shortage was found, was not acceptable. However, some further leniency may be called for on the penalties imposed. 5. emsp Therefore, I reduce the penalty on the appellant-company from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri N.C. Patel, I do not find any personal involvement or motive on his part in the offence. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Shri N.C. Patel is set aside. 6. emsp The appeal No. E/45/06 is partly allowed. Appeal No. E/46/06 of Shri N.C. Patel is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 541 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - On a specific query from the Bench, the learned SDR was not able to confirm whether revenue has preferred any appeal against the order of setting aside the confirmed demand. In the absence of any appeal, the amount which has been deposited by the respondent herein cannot be considered as duty and the findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are correct, and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 540 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Confiscation and penalty - Non-accountal of goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uired to maintain the statutory register. It should not be presumed that what was kept unaccounted was meant to be cleared clandestinely. He seeks waiver of fine and penalty imposed. 5. emsp The plea of the learned advocate that 100 EOU is exempted from maintaining account is not at all tenable. Maintaining account in the prescribed format may not be required, but it does not give them liberty not to maintain even private records indicating production/clearances on a day to day basis. The non-accounting of finished goods lying in the factory has been admitted. The confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 12,780/- is justified. 6. emsp However, no clandestine removal was proved. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- and the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. 7. emsp The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 539 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing appeal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... able due to which filing of appeal has been delayed. rdquo We are unable to understand this reasoning given by the applicant/Revenue for not filing the appeal in time. No explanation has been given as regards to which kind of document is not traceable. No justifiable reason has been given by the Revenue. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue is also dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 538 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand, confiscation and penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ng in the factory premises, she has dropped the demand on the ground that no evidence was available that it was intended to be cleared clandestinely and no evidence that the same was attempted to be cleared clandenstinely. 7. emsp The department rsquo s appeal is limited to the part of the order dropping the confiscation of the goods lying in the factory and demand of duty on goods which were lying in the factory. The goods lying in the factory could not be presumed to be meant for clandestine removal as rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals). The contention that if the officers had not visited the unit the offences would not have come to light and the goods could have been cleared by the assessee without accounting and without payment of duty is only a presumption. 8. emsp No valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with findings and reasonings of the Commissioner (Appeal) rsquo s order. 9. emsp The appeal by the Department is rejected. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 537 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Rectification of mistake - Precedent and subsequent change in law - Effect

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hen the goods are unconditionally exempted, the party shall not pay the duty, thereby implying that earlier to the amendment, they were free not to avail the exemption. The amendment is as follows - ldquo (1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods. rdquo It is noticed that the amendment dated 13-5-2005 is only ciarificatory in nature. rdquo 4. emsp It could be seen that the decision dated 6-11-2006 has been rendered taking into account the changes in law subsequent to the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I do not find any error/mistake apparent on record. Further, the order was subject to further appellate remedies. Therefore the application for ROM is rejected. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 536 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Proof of Clandestine removal - Held that: - there are no corroboration to the serious allegations of clandestine production and removal. The entries in the note book did not contain details such as description or quantity of the goods allegedly removed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 535 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Classifiaction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... under heading 2936.00 on the ground that they do not have any therapeutic value. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Micropure Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-III as reported at 2005 (190) E.L.T. 23 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the Larger Bench held that fixed dose combination of vitamins will fall under Chapter 30, as medicament. 3. emsp Respectfully following the judgment of the Larger Bench, the impugned order is set aside and we hold that combination manufactured by the appellant will fall under chapter heading 3003.10. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 534 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... all scale exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. He held that the respondent has given a declaration under Rule 173B and in the last page of the declaration, the respondent has specifically stated ldquo we produced the branded goods with our own brand name and we produced branded goods where the brand or trade name belongs to others chargeable to full rate of duty rdquo . The relevant labels have also been attached to the declaration. 4. emsp The above declaration brings out the fact of respondent manufacturing with the brand name of the M/s. Comet Oil Corporation Ltd. Hence, the appellant-company has not committed any wilful suppression or misdeclaration warranting invocation of extended time limit. 5. emsp The department has not adduced any valid grounds to interfere with the reasonings and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp The Department rsquo s appeal is, therefore, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Rectification of mistake

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that prayer for remand was not made by them and further that the interest is payable on claims sanctioned by the authorities below which are set out in para 6 of the ROM application. 2. emsp We accept the prayer for rectification and hold that para 7 is required to be read as under - ldquo In the light of the above discussion we hold that at the assessees have not discharged the burden cast upon them to prove that the duty burden on the product has not been passed on to their buyers. rdquo 3. emsp We also correct the figures occurring in para 8 of our Final Order to Rs. 1,25,95,393/-, Rs. 21,98,104/- and Rs. 18,41,079/-. 4. emsp Application is hereby allowed as above. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

• 2007 (5) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty - Delayed payment of Duty - Compounded Levy Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y clear, when the appellants failed to discharge their monthly duty liability. On perusal of the records I find that the appellants had discharged 60 to 75 of duty liability within time and the balance duty liability was also discharged by them, subsequently, with interest. In view of the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty to the equal amount of duty outstanding, is uncalled for in this case. The Tribunal has been taking consistent view that if that if delay is of shorter period, in discharging the duty liability, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) would suffice to meet the ends of justice. 5. emsp Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is modified to the effect that the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from Rs. 46,369/- (Rupees forty-six thousand three hundred sixty-nine only). 6. emsp Appeal allowed partly as indicated above. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 33