|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 924 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 962
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order deleting a penalty imposed under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty was deemed improper as the case did not involve fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved.
-
2011 (9) TMI 961
Excess cash received at the cash counters of the branches of the assessee - disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee on account of amortization of premium paid for securities held under “Held to maturity (HTM)" category - Addition on commission, exchange and discount including locker rent - addition on account of interest on Government securities - addition u/s 14A
-
2011 (9) TMI 960
Whether the executing court does not have the power to go behind the decree?
Whether the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or under the Act 1971 could be entertained by the Civil Court and whether the matter could be referred to the High Court at all?
-
2011 (9) TMI 959
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 34/2006, stating that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was rejected, with the Revenue advised to approach the Apex Court for further consideration.
-
2011 (9) TMI 958
Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue against CIT(Appeals) orders for assessment year 2004-05 in cases of M/s. Victory Spinning Mills Ltd., Shri R. Thangavelu, and Shri P. S. Sundaram regarding treatment of share application money as unexplained cash credit.
Issue 1 - Treatment of share application money in M/s. Victory Spinning Mills Ltd.:
The Assessing Officer treated investments in share capital by 181 shareholders as unexplained cash credit based on lists found during search operations. However, CIT(A) deleted the addition citing the decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., stating that share application money from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the company. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the share applicants' identities were known, allowing Revenue to proceed with individual assessments.
Issue 2 - Treatment of share application money in cases of Shri R. Thangavelu and Shri P. S. Sundaram:
Revenue contended that investments by share applicants were funds of the Managing Directors, as creditworthiness of applicants was not proven. However, it was argued that since the share applicants confirmed the transactions and identities were known, the investments could not be considered unexplained. The Tribunal held that as only lists of shareholders were found, without evidence of funds advanced by the Managing Directors, no addition could be made in their hands. The appeals by Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal pronounced the order on 16/09/2011, dismissing all appeals related to the treatment of share application money in the mentioned cases.
-
2011 (9) TMI 957
Whether the determination of the value of the property purchased by the appellant and the demand of additional stamp duty made by the appellant by the Additional Collector were exorbitant so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?
-
2011 (9) TMI 956
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal citing a previous judgment in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes (P) Ltd. Misc. Cvl. 15040/11 was also dismissed as unnecessary.
-
2011 (9) TMI 955
Whether there was no consideration on merits of the cases of the appellants before 21.9.2001, and, therefore, the orders passed in cases of the appellants retiring them compulsorily from service were not bad in law?
Whether the cases of the appellants for compulsory retirement, could have been considered again before they had reached the age of 55 years, when the Screening Committee had already considered their cases for compulsory retirement on their attaining the age of 50 years on July 17, 2000, and had not recommended their compulsory retirement which recommendation was accepted by the Full Court of the High Court?
-
2011 (9) TMI 954
Whether state local police was unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for securing the ends of justice the investigation has to be handed over to the CBI?
Whether the investigating officer even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully because senior functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to be named and political and administrative compulsions were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth?
-
2011 (9) TMI 953
The review petition was filed to correct a typographical error in the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in CEA 118/2009. The error stated CEA 96/2009 instead of CEA 96/2010, and the date of disposal was incorrect. The court directed the correction of the error and disposed of the review petition.
-
2011 (9) TMI 952
Reversal of Cenvat Credit – Notification No. 23/2004-CE, dated 1-3-2002 - Whether the Tribunal has erred in law by not appreciating the language of the relevant Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which clearly state that ‘Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods.
-
2011 (9) TMI 951
Whether the High Court is justified in treating the operative portion of the Order of the learned Special Judge as a direction issued to the sanctioning authority to sanction the prosecution of the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4?
Whether the High Court had grossly erred in considering and treating the mere observation of the learned Special Judge as the direction of the Court.?
-
2011 (9) TMI 950
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption u/s 11
2. Profit Motive
3. Applicability of Case Laws
4. Charitable Activity
5. Capitation Fees
6. Capital Expenditure
Summary:
1. Exemption u/s 11:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption u/s 11 to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the assessee, a public charitable trust running an educational institution, applied its income for charitable purposes and was entitled to exemption u/s 11.
2. Profit Motive:
The Revenue argued that the assessee had a profit motive, citing the Assessing Officer's findings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts and judicial pronouncements, concluding that the assessee's activities were charitable and not profit-driven.
3. Applicability of Case Laws:
The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A) erred in applying the cases of American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institution Vs. CBDT and Pinegrove International Charitable Trust Vs. UOI. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that these cases were relevant and applicable to the assessee's situation.
4. Charitable Activity:
The Revenue contended that the assessee's educational activities were not charitable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the assessee's activities, including running an educational institution and providing various student services, were indeed charitable.
5. Capitation Fees:
The Revenue argued that the assessee collected capitation fees, which should disqualify it from exemption u/s 11. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly held that the issue of capitation fees as defined by the Apex Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation and the OPEI Act, 2007, was not applicable to the assessee.
6. Capital Expenditure:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to consider capital expenditure as application of income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that capital expenditure for building infrastructure necessary for imparting education was a valid application of income for charitable purposes.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the assessee's entitlement to exemption u/s 11. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee in support of the CIT(A)'s order was allowed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 949
Issues:
1. Entitlement to avail Modvat Credit on inputs received from 100% EOU supplier.
2. Ignoring restrictions on credit availment under Rule 57 AB (2) (a) of Central Excise Rules.
3. Reliance on a judgment while an appeal is pending before the High Court.
4. Consideration of clearances from 100% EOUs to DTA as "deemed import."
5. Entitlement of assessees to duty paid by suppliers as excise duty equivalent to Additional duty of customs.
Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the entitlement of the first respondent to avail Modvat Credit on inputs received from a 100% EOU supplier. The question pertains to whether the credit can be claimed to the extent of 100% of the Additional Duty of Customs leviable when the actual payment was only 50% of such duty. This matter involves interpreting Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95.
2. The second issue questions the correctness of the Tribunal in disregarding the restrictions on credit availment as per Rule 57 AB (2) (a) of the Central Excise Rules. The focus is on whether the Tribunal erred in allowing credit beyond the duty amount equal to the Additional duty leviable on the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
3. The third issue concerns the Tribunal's reliance on a specific judgment while an appeal is pending before the High Court. The question arises as to whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on the judgment in Vikram Ispat v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III, despite the matter being subjudice.
4. The fourth issue questions the Tribunal's decision regarding clearances from 100% EOUs to the DTA, arguing that such clearances should be treated as "deemed import." This issue involves determining the classification of clearances from EOUs to the DTA and its implications on the tax treatment.
5. The final issue addresses the entitlement of assessees to the duty paid by suppliers as excise duty equivalent to the Additional duty of customs leviable. The judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) favored the assessees, aligning with the precedent set in the case of Vikram Ispat v. CCE, Mumbai - III. The High Court, after reviewing the CESTAT's order, upheld the decision and dismissed the appeals, allowing the Revenue to approach the Supreme Court.
-
2011 (9) TMI 948
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, which affirmed findings by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner of Appeals. The issues raised were covered by a previous judgment in Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh v. Raghav Alloys Ltd. The present appeal was dismissed based on the reasons recorded in the Raghav Alloys case.
-
2011 (9) TMI 947
The Supreme Court dismissed Review Petitions against a judgment dated 18th February, 2011 due to a delay of 114 days with no satisfactory explanation provided. The Review Petitions were found to lack merit and were dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.
-
2011 (9) TMI 946
The Supreme Court in Citation 2011 (9) TMI 946 - SC Order, with judges Mr. D.K. Jain and Mr. Madan B. Lokur JJ, dismissed special leave petitions citing the decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited versus Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 10 SCC 292].
-
2011 (9) TMI 945
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to rebate claims.
2. Entitlement to interest on delayed rebate claims.
Summary:
1. Entitlement to Rebate Claims:
The petitioners, merchant exporters, lodged rebate claims with the Central Excise authorities on 9.7.2007 and thereafter. These claims were neither granted nor rejected due to a circular dated 8.12.2006, which the authorities believed disqualified the petitioners from such rebates. The Gujarat High Court in Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. v. Union of India (2010(254) ELT 551(Guj.)) held that the circular could not negate the vested right of exporters to claim rebates for exports made between 8.12.2006 and 17.9.2007. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in Union of India v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. (2010 (256) ELT A161(SC)). Consequently, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the rebate claims in September, October, and November 2010.
2. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Rebate Claims:
The petitioners requested interest on the delayed rebate claims, which was denied by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, citing compliance with the stipulated time limit post the Supreme Court's decision. The petitioners argued that the rebate claims were not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing, thus entitling them to interest u/s 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that the rebate claims were neither granted nor rejected for a long period, and the High Court's decision declaring the circular invalid had a retrospective effect. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to interest on the delayed payment of rebate after three months from the date of filing the claims, as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, directing the adjudicating authority to calculate and pay the interest on the rebate claims expeditiously, preferably within two months. The petitioners' appeals before the Appellate Commissioner were to be withdrawn.
-
2011 (9) TMI 944
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of liability of a petitioner, who is an exempted establishment under section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to pay Provident Fund contribution on behalf of security agencies. The key issues include the petitioner's legal obligation to pay contributions, the liability of the petitioner as a principal employer, and the applicability of a judgment from the Patna High Court regarding exemption from the scheme.
Summary of Judgment:
Issue 1: Liability of the petitioner to pay Provident Fund contribution on behalf of security agencies
The petitioner, a cooperative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, with its own Provident Fund Scheme, availed services of security agencies. The security agencies, including Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, were found to have defaulted in payment of Provident Fund contributions. An order was passed under section 7-A of the Act, imposing liability on the petitioner as a principal employer to pay the contributions in case of default by the security agencies. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was not obligated to pay contributions for independent establishments. The court upheld the petitioner's liability to pay contributions for Jayam/Sward Security Service but quashed the order regarding Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, stating that the petitioner cannot be considered a principal employer for contractors with independent code numbers.
Issue 2: Applicability of a judgment from the Patna High Court
The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment from the Patna High Court regarding exemption from the Provident Fund scheme for principal employers. The court considered this argument and found that the petitioner, being an exempted establishment under section 17 of the Act, cannot be held liable for contributions of contractors with independent code numbers. The court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the order for Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service but upholding the order for Jayam/Sward Security Service.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's liability to pay Provident Fund contributions is limited to contractors without independent code numbers. The judgment from the Patna High Court supported the petitioner's contention, leading to the partial allowance of the writ petition. The order under section 7-A was quashed for Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, while upheld for Jayam/Sward Security Service. The respondents were permitted to execute the order independently against Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service.
-
2011 (9) TMI 943
Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself?
Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks?
Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct?
............
|
9911796707
