Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2008 2008 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 381 to 400 of 576 Records

• 2008 (6) TMI 196
  

  Interpretation of SSI exemption notification – date of effect – benefit of exclusion of job work clearances - Tribunal holding that respondents are entitled to benefit of Notification dated 11-8-2003 retrospectively from 1-4-2003 - Scope of notification should be decided with reference to statutory provision under which same is issued – notification issued u/s 5A (1) of CEA 1944 unless otherwise provided, will come into force on date of its issue – It is for the Government to consider whether a notification should be given retrospectivity - Tribunal or even the High Courts have no power to grant retrospectivity for a notification in the interpretation process – tribunal order quashed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 195
  

  Application for rectification of mistake –– held that Sec. 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 did not borrow provisions of Customs Act, 1962 relating to penalty and interest, so error is rectified by holding that imposition of penalty and levy of interest for evasion of anti-dumping duty, CVD and SAD is not justified - hold that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider ROM application after expiry of six months from the date of final order, provided that such applications are filed within six months from the date of receipt of the final order – plea that an apparent mistake arises in the stay order directing pre-deposit is rejected, as it is not a mistake in the Final Order but only in the interim order, which cannot be subject matter of ROM application – application partly allowed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 194
  

  Refund of duty credit relating to inputs used in the export product – Since the shipment was made during the quarter-ending 31-12-01 and the initial claim was filed on 20-9-2002, the claim was within the time-limit prescribed notwithstanding the fact that the claim was returned with objections and the same was re-submitted later on by the Respondents – even if claim is filed within the time-limit is also required to be further examined with reference to Not. No. 11 /02-C.E.- revenue contend that some export was under DEEC Scheme - Department’s Appeal is partly allowed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 193
  

  Notice u/s 148 – assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and in the assessment the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80HH on Export incentive benefits - on basis of subsequent decision of SC in the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods, AO changed his opinion and issued reassessment notice beyond time limit of four years forming a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because excess deduction was allowed – held that since it is not a case of any failure on the part of the assessee, notice is quashed as time-barred

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 192
  

  Refund of import duty on the ground that import is exempt as appellant was a “Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation” engaged in research - notification provides for exemption only to “Public funded research institutions registered with Department of Scientific and Industrial Research” subject to production of certificate to the effect that goods required are for research purposes only – Registration granted to the appellant on 20-7-2001 while the import was on 19-10-1999 - Exemption in the notification is available only if the importer has got registration as on the date of import - appellant is not entitled to refund of duty paid

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 191
  

  Application for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that the royalty paid by the appellant to their foreign collaborators is covered by intellectual Property Services introduced w.e.f. 10-9-04 – earlier SCN was issued to cover the appellant under category of Consulting engineers services – that notice is overlapping regarding period - submission that the entire facts were in the knowledge of Revenue and the present show cause notice was partially barred by limitation – stay is granted partly

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 190
  

  Refund - refund claim filed after expiry of one year on ground that duty was paid under protest - Condition of Not. No. 32/97 has been violated and goods had not been exported and no permission for extension of time had also been taken from the concerned authority - Long after fulfilling the condition of notification their payment cannot be treated as “under protest” - there was no threat or coercion by the Department – refund claim is held as time barred

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 189
  

  Utilization of credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in clearance of waste and scrap generated during manufacture of job work materials namely Bearing Races/Components – goods cleared by appellant without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E to the principal manufacturer, who cleared the goods on payment of duty – since waste and scrap generated during the manufacture of Bearing Races, is an excisable goods, there is no reason to deny the credit

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 188
  

  Clandestine removal of goods - shortages of finished goods MS Ingots and excess stock of MS scrap – demand raised mere on basis of electricity consumption – held that, since fuel consumption has been fluctuating from month to month, adoption of one particular month’s consumption can not be made appropriate basis for determining production for number of years – demand is set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 187
  

  Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred under provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 as filed beyond the time limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of order - delay of filing was caused due to ankle injury of Director of the Appellant Company - Appellant produced the Medical Certificate in their Memo of Appeal – therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 186
  

  Liability of recipient of GTO service – imposition of interest and penalty - unless development in terms of law regarding imposition of retrospective liability for payment of service tax relating to the period 1997-98 which culminated in Supreme Court judgment is ruled out, the question of leviability of penalty cannot be conclusively decided – however, interest is payable – pre-deposit of interest is ordered but of penalty is waived

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 185
  

  Demand confirmed on the ground that the additional amount collected by the appellants (stock-broker) from their clients as “transaction charge” is part of service charges and this amount cannot be excluded from the gross value - Credit has been disallowed as the appellants could not produce the details in connection with their service tax registration – on both the counts, the appellants do not have a prima facie case for total waiver of the pre-deposit – stay granted partly

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 184
  

  Case of the Assessee is that the Assessee Company is the Company in which the public are substantially interested as defined u/s 2(18) since more than 50% of the shares are held by two Companies “to which this clause applies” – contention of assessee is acceptable – two companies even if not fulfilling conditions laid down in section 108(b), but covered under definition of S 2(18) – therefore, assessee company is also covered by S. 2(18) - assessee should be treated as a Public Limited Company

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 183
  

  Delay in filing of return and payment of tax – tax was deposited before issue of SCN and interest thereon was deposited after issuance of SCN – penalty imposed in adjudication were proposed to be enhanced by issuance of SCN subsequently, seeking revision of adjudication order - Commissioner dropped the revision proceedings on the ground that there is no allegation of any mala fide intention - revenue has not challenged this finding of Commissioner - order of the Commissioner can’t be interfered

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 182
  

  Reassessment notice to individual on ground that he and other fourteen others functioned as an AOP – notice was issued to petitioner stating that there was failure on the part of AOP to file a return of income offering the prize money for taxation – it is clear that claim of prize winning ticket was made by 15 individual persons - held that, since there was no failure on part of petitioner to file a return, notice issued after 4 years is time barred, so it is quashed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 181
  

  Appellant did not have any manufacturing facility so job was sub-contracted to sub-contractors - sub-contractors billed the appellant and the appellant had to pay them - dealings were on a principal to principal basis - appellant did not exercise any control over the contractors work - sub-contractors are the manufacturers - Moreover, appellants had bona fide belief that their items were not liable to duty as they were handicrafts – demand and penalty waived – larger period not invocable

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 180
  

  Confiscation - Jute bags were confiscated on the ground that the exporter declared higher FOB value - As the appellant in addition to the purchase price paid also done value addition & also paid transportation & insurance charges, therefore, it cannot be said that the value was inflated – moreover, value of the exported goods is not related to the DEPB claim - the DEPB claim is on the weight basis and there is no discrepancy in the weight mentioned in the shipping bill – confiscation set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 179
  

  Refusal of granting relief of waiver of interest u/s 220(2A) – assessee pleaded that on account of his ill-health and financial problems, he was seeking relief u/s 220(2A) - no reasoning given regarding the genuine hardship of the assessee – no reasoning on fact that default was beyond the control of assessee – impugned order merely states that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions of s. 220(2A) and had not co-operated with dept. - order refusing the waiver of interest is set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 178
  

  Profits derived by the assessee from the export of goods – claim for deduction u/s 80HHC – tribunal was right in reducing the said profits by the amount of carried forward depreciation and investment allowance, before allowing deduction u/s 80HHC – appeal of assessee is dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 177
  

  Allegation of clearance without payment of duty – shortage of grey fabrics – Director and merchant-manufacturers admitting the clandestine removal - Mere entry in RG 23A Part-1 or Part-2 register does not prove the utilization of grey fabrics in the manufacture of processed fabrics and the dispatch of the same on payment of duty – demand on ground of clandestine removal is justified

  ---

1 ....161718192021222324........ 29