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 441 to 460 of 576 Records

• 2008 (6) TMI 136
  

  Cash credits – business of predecessor entity was transferred as a going concern to assessee-company - Is the Tribunal right in holding that liability to pay tax in respect of the unexplained deposits did not arise on the ground that the company was incorporated on 14-02-85 while the cash credits were shown to have been introduced in the books of accounts of the company on 16-01-1985 – Held, yes – tribunal had found as a matter of fact that there were no fresh credits

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 135
  

  Credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of medicaments, which were cleared for export without payment of duty - medicaments cleared, were so cleared under a registered trademark and therefore it can hardly be gainsaid that the goods merited classification under SH 3003.10, which carried a rate of duty other than ‘nil’ - Such goods cannot be treated as ‘exempted’ merely for the fact that they were cleared without payment of duty – credit cannot be denied

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 134
  

  Loading/enhancement of the transaction value - two OIO passed by the Dy. Commissioner are in conflict with each other inasmuch as on the very same issue, there are two quantum of loadings - first OIO calls for 50% loading, while the second calls for 100% loading - in both the cases, no reasons have been adduced as to justify the quantum of loading - we remand the case to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh proposing exact quantum of the loading

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 133
  

  Denial of Cenvat credit - imposition of equal amount of penalty – According to the Department, the price of the goods was subsequently reduced by the supplier and, to the extent it was reduced, Cenvat credit was not admissible to the buyer – held that credit taken on strength of the invoice covering purchase of inputs, cannot be subsequently reduced on the above ground – appeal of assessee is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 132
  

  Enhancement/loading of value of the black raisins (without seeds) imported by the respondents herein from the declared value - value obviously depends on quality of black raisin well as other conditions such as crop and it has not been held that both factors were common to imported goods as well as the goods on the basis of which the loading was carried out. - setting aside of loading of the value of the black raisin (without seeds) has rightly been done by the Commissioner (Appeals)

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 131
  

  Original authority held that the job workers are earning additional amount of benefit in the form of Modvat credit - Respondent, job-worker took credit of the duty paid by principal manufacturer – such availment of credit cannot be treated as job-charges or income of job-worker – since there was no any sale, no any payment made by job-worker and no any flow back it cannot be treated as additional consideration

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 130
  

  Challenge to an order of detention passed u/s 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act - date of arrest as found in the English version and in the Tamil version, is found to be different. Two mahazars were prepared, and they contain different facts as to the recovery of the currencies - All would go to show that when such discrepancies were found, duty is cast upon the detaining authority to call for necessary explanation; but, he has miserably failed to do so – detention order is set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 129
  

  Applicants are engaged in “Short Message Peer to Peer services” (SMPP service). The contention of the applicant is that they are only acting as carrier of messages like a courier sending parcels - applicants entered into an agreement with their clients for forwarding the SMS to various persons as per instructions of the clients for consideration hence providing business auxiliary service which includes provisions of service on behalf of the client – hence stay cannot be granted completely

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 128
  

  GTA service - demand on vehicle used for transporting ready mix concrete - ex party order has been passed in spite of the fact that the applicant vide letter dated 12.2.08 made a request for adjournment of the hearing for two weeks as the counsel was unwell - It is not a case of the Revenue that many opportunities were granted to the applicant to attend the personal hearing - impugned order passed ex parte is set aside - appeal is disposed of by way of remand

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 127
  

  Prima facie, it appears to us that the Appellants are not providing exclusively manpower recruitment/supply service - In view of the fact that the Appellants are providing operation and maintenance of ONGC-owned workover rigs and the Department is not able to quantify the amount attributable to manpower service, if any, it is not possible for us to direct the Appellants to pre-deposit any amount in the absence of such quantification

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 126
  

  Mandap Keeper - impugned order levies tax and imposes penalty for renting out of auditorium for holding dance, drama and other cultural functions - prima facie, seen that the functions held are in the category of dance, drama etc. whereas holding official, social and business functions are pre-requisite for taxing temporary occupation of Mandap. As such, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived during pendency of the appeal.

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 125
  

  Electric power Fencing System by use of solar power – Excisability - in view of Circular dated 15-1-02, contention of appellant that impugned item is an immovable property fixed to earth, hence, it would not be excisable, is accepted – held that solar powered electric fence can’t be called as machine – held that only individual components of electric power fencing system are excisable, not complete system - Original Authority is not justified in classifying the impugned item u/h 8543.90 of CET

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 124
  

  Transfer of goods from one bonded warehouse to another i.e. from EHTP to STP or vice versa – procedural lapse of not obtaining amended Customs license – Demand raised on ground that appellant used the capital goods procured free of duty for BPO activities, not for manufacture and export of electronic hardware – held that when appellants got approval for the same from STPI Director then it is not open to customs to demand duty mere for technical violation – demand set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 123
  

  Appellants undertake the body building activity on the chassis received which is duty paid - Eligibility for exemption under Sl. No. 212 of Notification no. 6/2002 – appellant satisfied the condition of the notification ibid; that credit of duty paid on chassis not taken – further, proviso to Condition No. 52 of Sl. No. 212 also not debar such exemption – impugned entry no. 212 is held to be applicable on impugned goods cleared – appellant is entitled for exemption under serial no. 212

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 122
  

  Tribunal in its first order upheld the invocation of longer period – but the same has been set aside by SC therefore the same is not now binding on this bench when the matter is taken up for de novo decision – hence demand should be limited to normal period - whether the activity undertaken by the appellants results in the emergence of furniture and parts thereof classifiable under CSH 9403 and liable to Central Excise Duty – matter remanded to determine excisability of goods

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 121
  

  Not. No. 6/2002, conditional notification granting only partial exemption - Assessee’s submissions that notification cannot be forced on them, is valid - provisions of S. 5A (1A) can’t not be applied to them – not. no. 6/2002 bars credit of duty paid only on chassis - if there was no bar on taking credit on chassis as a condition in the notification, then Rule 3(7) would not be applicable – Commissioner’s view that as explanation to Rule 3(7), they are not eligible to take credit is incorrect

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 120
  

  Denial of exemption after 3 years of import – commission and omission on part of revenue - department not objected at time of import and indigenous procurement of goods free of duty – assessee cannot be blamed entirely – finally even if goods are liable to confiscation, responsibility should be squarely put only on the Customs/Central Excise Authorities and Director STPI – redemption fine and penalty not imposable - If penalty is to be necessarily imposed it should be only on the Revenue

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 119
  

  Refund claim on the ground that credit was reversed twice when inputs not received – since inputs were not received, question of their use not arise and hence unjust enrichment not applicable – When CA clearly indicate in his certificate that debit to sundry adjustment account does not amount to passing on expenses or losses to customers, principle of unjust enrichment cannot be applied – refund credited to Consumer Welfare Account is not justified

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 118
  

  Hospital equipment – exemption under Notification No. 64/88 – condition of providing free treatment to 40% of out patients violated - Violation of post-import conditions imposed under Notification No. 64/88, leading to confiscation and demand– contravention occurred before rescission of notification – Custom Duty Exemption Certificates (CDEC) were withdrawn subsequently – order of cancelling CDECs not challenged - exemption was rightly denied

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 117
  

  During the course of manufacturing of sugar and molasses certain quantity of brown sugar/rori sugar/scrapping was left in the machinery at the end of each crushing season. The brown sugar so left is not a marketable product - Department submissions that sugar includes any form of sugar and therefore, the brown sugar should be held to be excisable, may not be applicable to the present facts as the product has not reached the marketable stage – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

1 ....192021222324252627........ 29