|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1086 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - applicants were not serious to pursue their petitions at any stage. Accordingly the applicants were directed to make 50% duty demanded in each case as against the demand of duty of ₹ 19,51,315/- and equal amount of penalty in one case and duty of ₹ 5,81,003/- and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- and to report compliance on 12.09.2012 - application mot maintainable, dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1085 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat it does not appear that this plea was taken before the Tribunal as there is no discussion on this point. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249 the proper remedy is to move an application before the Tribunal for review/rectification of the impugned order. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1084 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o the detriment of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the prima facie view taken by two High Courts, the Tribunal is bound to follow these decisions at the interim stage. 4. The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We observe that in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) and Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (supra), the same issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Delhi and both the High Courts took a prima facie view that "insistence of inclusion of value of goods supplied and provided free by the client of an assessee cannot be included for the purposes of calculating taxable service." 6. Respectfully following these decisions, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during pendency of the appeal. Dictated and pronounced in Court.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1083 - SUPREME COURT
When a court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding on technical grounds, i.e., non-observance of statutory provisions, or for violation of the principles of natural justice, then whether the superior court, must provide opportunity to the disciplinary authority, to take up and complete the proceedings, from the point that they stood vitiated?
If the answer to question no.1 is, that such fresh opportunity should be given, then whether the same may be denied on the ground of delay in initiation, or in conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings?
-
2012 (11) TMI 1082 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ar/categorical direction to disallow depreciation claimed on goodwill need to be deleted and the Assessing Officer be at liberty to examine the issue in the light of the various case laws on which the assessee’s counsel had placed unstinting confidence. Hence, the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the matter afresh de hors the direction given by the CIT and consider the issue on merits in accordance with law and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court inthecase of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.557 & 558/Bang/2012 for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Consequently, the stay petition preferred by the assessee in S.P. NOs.141 & 147/Bang/2012 for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 are rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th Nov., 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT DELHI
Addition made on account of books purchases from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation - Held that:- When sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed purchases on the basis of which sales were made. Only option if any was available with the department was to estimate the income of the assessee during the year on the basis of trading result of earlier three years, made available at page no- 38 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.
As during the year, the assessee has shown better gross profit at a better GP rate of 27.67 % in comparison to the GP profit and GP rates of earlier two AYs. In the AY 2005-06, the assessee has shown GP rate on 25.67 % and in AY 2004-05, the GP rate shown is 25.47%. Since the assessee has shown better GP rate during the year, we find that there is no justification to make addition even on this account. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue direct the AO to delete the addition in question at ₹ 43,34,496/- made by the AO on account of the alleged bogus purchases made from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1080 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the learned Single Judge who heard the petition CWJC No.10091/2006, which began the third round of litigation filed on behalf of the Bihar Education Service Association, had no business to re-open the entire controversy, even otherwise?
-
2012 (11) TMI 1079 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... refund was filed on 4-2-2009 whereas the goods in question have been exported vide Shipping Bill No. 4402360 having LEO, dated 17-4-2008 and therefore the claim is not within six months from the last date of quarter of i.e. 30-6-2008 in which the goods were exported. I find that appellant’s contention that the time-limit of six months has been extended to one year vide Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009 is not sustainable as the refund was filed on 4-2-2009 i.e. much before the issue of Notification No. 17/2009. Therefore, the time-limit of one year will be applicable only to the refund claims filed after 7-7-2009. Since the present refund claim was filed much after the six months as prescribed under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended by 32/2008, dated 18-11-2008 claim is clearly time-barred and Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. 6. I uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal and reject the appeal filed by the appellant. (Pronounced in court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1078 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars are to be included in the assessable value of cars in the light of the definition of "transaction value" given in Section 4(3) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Tribunal’s earlier order on same issue in respect of same appellant based on admitted facts and not on point of law.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of bonus paid to the Contractor’s labourers - Held that:- It is fact that the assessee has paid the bonus to the labourers of the contractor which has not been doubted by the A.O. The appellant had not proved the custom prevailing in the line of business of same locality before the A.O. Therefore, we have considered view in the interest of justice that one more opportunity is to be given for all three years to the appellant to prove that the bonus paid by the appellant to the labourers of the contractor falls under custom prevailing or not and decide the issues, accordingly, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Accordingly, on this issue, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the A.O. for de novo in all three years. - Decided in favour of assessee for statsitical purposes.
Addition on account of foreign travelling expenses - Held that:- A.R. fairly accepted that these expenses were incurred for business purposes but they did not have any sufficient evidence to prove that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Therefore, the same has not been pressed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is held valid - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1076 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Banking & other financial services - Assessee provides service of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government - Penalty u/s 76 - Held that:- Assessee submits that on the identical issue in the case of Canara Bank v. CST [2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] has held that such activity does not fall under the category of Banking and Financial service and the above activity is exempt from banking and financial services. As the issue has attained finality by the order of the Tribunal in Canara Bank (supra) therefore following the same, we hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax confirmed against them by way of impugned order and we set aside the demand of service tax. There is no imposition of penalty on the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1075 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Re-assessment Proceedings – Invertors whether electronic goods or not – Original assessment proceedings were framed and turnover of inverters were taxed as electronic goods – However, some doubt arose regarding taxability of inverters as competitive manufacturer, were charging tax @ 4% whereas others was charging tax @ 10% – Proceedings under Section 21(2) were initiated and necessary permission was sought by Assessing Officer, which was granted – Held that:- in re-assessment proceedings, vital questions will be gone into by Assessing Authority upon considering specification of inverters given by petitioner – Re-assessment proceedings therefore, cannot be faulted – In order/circular issued by Commissioner, he has not decided finally as to whether inverters are electronic goods or not – Commissioner had only given general direction to his subordinate authorities to examine this question – Decided against Appellant.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1074 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e concerned authorities looked into the matter on different dates and in fact, the order was made by an authority which did not have jurisdiction to do so and to whom the concerned authorities could not have delegated such powers. The petitioner is free to urge this ground as a preliminary one, if so advised, before the CESTAT. It shall be open to the petitioner to file an affidavit in this regard and rely upon such necessary documents as it chooses to do so in this regard. If so warranted, the CESTAT may require the production of necessary documents and files and examine the rival contentions in this regard on merits. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT
Condition for searching a person – Non-Compliance – Appellant challenges impugned order of conviction on non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 – Held that :- clear that panchnama that appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before gazetted officer or Magistrate but consent was sought for their personal search – SHO merely asked appellants for their search by him and they simply agreed – Mandate of Section 50(1) was mandatory and requires strict compliance, failing to which would render recovery of illicit article suspect and vitiate conviction of same if conviction was recorded only on basis of recovery – In view of said rule search and seizure of suspect from appellants was bad and conviction was unsustainable in law – Decision of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat [2010 (10) TMI 934 - SUPREME COURT] followed – Appeal allowed – Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1072 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Duty demand - Whether assessee who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel is liable to pay Excise duty on the item called “conveyor belts” when such belts are removed by the assessee as a scrap item and if it is held that such item is subjected to payment of duty then under what sub heading and by which name/classification and at what rate - Held that:- Tribunal did not decide the issue in detail with reference to the facts of the case, the relevant rules and decided case law on the subject which have a bearing over the controversy and hence we can safely conclude by saying that impugned order is essentially a cryptic and unreasoned one and not liable to be sustained in this appeal. It does require a fresh look and in depth debate and discussion both on facts and in law in the light of relevant rules, the decided case law on the subject cited at the bar by both the sides and then to return a finding by the Tribunal as to whether assessee is liable to pay any Excise duty on the items/goods in questions for which show cause notice was served on them or not and if held liable to pay then at what rate it is payable and under which heading/sub-heading it is payable and if not liable to pay any duty then why and on what basis it is not liable - Since the issue is of frequent occurrence involving sizable amount of duty if found payable and hence we consider it apposite to remand the case to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1071 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment order - Essential twin conditions for invoking the revisional jurisdiction not fulfilled - Held that:- It is clear that the learned CIT had merely on a change of opinion and to substitute his own opinion about the deficiencies in the maintenance of the record by the assessee invoked the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the assessment order. This is not permissible under section 263 of the Act.
Once the order of the assessing authority stood merged with higher appellate authority, the parallel authority on the administrative side, namely, CIT, even cannot revise later on the order passed by the assessing authority, which stood merged with the order of appellate authority. In the case of the present assessee itself, this Court on previous occasion in CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [1999 (9) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN High Court], quashed the revisional order under section 263 of the Act.
Findings arrived at by the Tribunal essentially remain findings of fact, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law, requiring consideration by this Court. Mere alleged insufficiency of the enquiry in the opinion of the CIT by the assessing authority, could not permit him to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and, therefore, the essential twin conditions for invoking the revisional jurisdiction, namely, the impugned assessment being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, were not at all satisfied in the present case. - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1070 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of goods - Classification under Chapter sub-heading 7508.00 or under Chapter sub-heading 8607.00 - goods in question are manufactured and supplied to railway authorities and is used as parts of railway locomotive - Held that:- Southern Railway has placed the order for supply of ‘valve seat insert’ as per the drawings and specifications supplied by the railways and the same are to be used as parts of locomotive. The parts of locomotive are specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8607.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. - The appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the goods in question are not used as parts of locomotives. The appellant in the classification list was describing the goods as castings of nickel and nickel based alloys without disclosing the fact that the same are to be supplied to the railway on the specification given by the railways - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1069 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Duty demand - Bar of limitation - Inordinate delay of 1088 days - Applicability of limitation Act - Held that:- provisions of Rule 13 of FTT Rules, 1979 are pari materia with the provisions of Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the ratio of above judgments is squarely applicable to this case - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal as time-barred as there is no provisions under FTT Rules to condone the delay exceeding 3 months. Government therefore upholds the impugned order-in-appeal for being legal and proper. Thus the instant revision application cannot be entertained - Decision in the case of Delta Impex v. CC, New Delhi reported [2004 (2) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] followed - Decide against assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1068 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Denial of rebate claim - claims were filed after one year's time limitation as stipulated under Section 11B - Held that:- exports pertaining to relevant ARE-1s dated 11-3-2006 were made partly by Air and partly by sea - export case as having been made partly by sea & partly by Air, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of two different authorities for the purpose of grant of due export benefits. For this case matter Government is of the opinion that when the applicant had indeed bonafidely approached one of the proper rebate sanctioning authority for the purpose and submitted all the relevant documents then the department should have co-operated and co-ordinated with the appropriate rebate sanctioning authority and the entire case matter could have been settled in a legal and proper manner well within required time frame. - time limitation of one year is to be computed from the date on which rebate claim was initially filed - Decision in the case of M/s. I.O.C. Ltd. reported as [2006 (9) TMI 203 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA] followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1067 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Denial of rebate claim - rebate claim was preferred by them on the strength of ARE-1’s instead of ARE-2 which is the prescribed document as per provisions contained in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and the amount of rebate claim in the said ARE-1’s was shown as NIL - Held that:- exporter has followed all the conditions and procedure laid down under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 except the above said violation of exporting goods on ARE-1 form instead of ARE-2 Form. Department has also pleaded that batch production records does not contain the vital information, such as name of supplier of inputs, input invoice, etc., and as such production records are not co-relatable to the exports in question. Government observes that as per the conditions of said notification, the manufacturer or processor shall obtain the materials to be utilized in the manufacture of finished goods intended for export, directly from the registered factory in which such goods are produced accompanied by an invoice under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Exporter claimed to have complied with the said requirement. Department has not countered the said claim of respondent. So, it cannot be said that use of duty paid inputs in the manufacture of export goods is not established - respondents are rightly held eligible for input stage rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) r/w Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Decided against Revenue.
............
|
