Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2011 2011 (8) 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 461 to 480 of 938 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 922
  

  whether the sun glasses can be considered “pre-packed commodity” under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - It is the grievance of the respondent that in spite of proper explanation, the Inspector/Appellant No. 2 seized the sun glasses for allegedly not declaring name and address of the manufacturer/month and year of manufacturing which is in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules - Court in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (2007 -TMI - 2207 - Supreme Court of India) - Held that: the question which fell for consideration, relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules, discussion as to the applicability, and the ultimate conclusion in para 9, namely, “whatever be the situation, it is clear that a refrigerator is a “packaged commodity” and thus is covered under the Act and the Rules - Matter is directed to place all these appeals before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for listing before a Larger Bench

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 918
  

  Demand - commercial training or coaching service - Mere failure to obtain registration and pay service tax is not sufficient to hold that the assessees suppressed the rendering of a service - There is no material on record to establish that the assessees had knowledge of the fact that they were rendering a taxable service and yet did not obtain registration and pay service tax - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 917
  

  Waiver of demand - Business Auxiliary Services - The activities undertaken by the Subsidiaries appear to be on behalf of the applicant in relation to the agreement entered into between the applicant and the customers, but, prima facie, these activities have been carried out in the foreign countries - The evidences relied upon by the department do not, prima facie, show that these activities have been carried out in India and, therefore notwithstanding payment by the applicant to the Subsidiaries abroad, we do not see evidence of import of the services - Decided in favor of the assessee.

  However pre-deposit ordered in respect of information technology software services provided after 16-5-2008.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 915
  

  Penalty - security and detective services - in this case, the service tax was paid on 7-12-2006 in respect of the quarter ending June 2006 and on 30-12-2006 in respect of quarter ending September 2006 and in both the cases service tax was paid before any show cause notice was issued - According to the Board’s Letter F.No. 137/167/2006-CX-4, dated 3-10-2007, once the service tax due has been paid with interest before issue of show cause notice, as provided in Section 73 discussed above, no show cause notice can be issued - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 913
  

  Notification No. 158/95 - Re imports of Indian Goods for repairs, reconditioning - Held That:- goods were to be re-exported by 22.8.2000 but actually exported on 21.3.01. As the re-export took place beyond the condonable period, benefit of notification denied.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 912
  

  Imported Winding Machine under notification No.53/97- - After using, cleared to DTA on payment @ 10% on depreciated value - Show cause issued to discharge Customs duty: Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 10%, Special Customs Duty (SCD) @ 5% and Additional duty @ 13%, - Appellant contended expression 'customs duty applicable' relates to only the basic duty of customs and not to other duties - Held That:- Since the appellant availed the exemption not only on the Basic duty of Customs, but also in respect of additional duty of Customs and Special duty of Customs at the time of importation, therefore when the goods are subsequently cleared from 100% EOU to DTA after obtaining the requisite approval, these duty liabilities have to be discharged on the depreciated value of the goods. Appeal dismissed. , notification No.53/97-Cus dated 03/06/97 grants exemption not only in respect of basic duty of customs leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 but also in respect of the additional duty of Customs

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 911
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - lower authorities have held that the service tax liability, though is required to be raised against the foreign service provider but the liability would get shifted to the appellant - High Court judgment in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India reported in (2008 -TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) laying down that the service recipient in India, from a foreign person, who does not own office in India, is not liable to pay service tax before 18-4-2006 when the provisions of Section 66A were enacted - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 910
  

  Demand - Consulting Engineers - Counsel for Respondent drew attention to the invoice which describes the particulars of item charged as “Fabrication Drawings of Machines as per order dated 16-12-99 and order of acceptance Ref. GEL-149/ISRCL03-99” - Revenue has not contested the veracity of the copy of invoice produced by the Respondent. Considering the copy of the invoice, it has not been fair on the part of Revenue to argue this case by inserting a preposition which ought to have been there but was not there - Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 908
  

  Penalty - Appellant admitted that diamonds smuggled into India - As per custom act Fine is available in lieu of confiscation - Held That:- Penalty is reduced to Rs 5,00,000/-

  Penalty - Held That:- No evidence on record to show person was having any knowledge regarding illicit import of the diamonds in question. Thus penalty cannot be imposed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 907
  
  Issues:
  1. Delay in disposal of appeal due to absence of Appellate Authority.
  
  Analysis:
  The writ petition was filed to seek the release of confiscated goods by customs officials, with a Departmental Appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). The main contention was the delay caused in disposing of the appeal due to the absence of an incumbent in the office of the Appellate Authority.
  
  Upon hearing the matter, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents presented an Office Order relieving the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax from the present charge to take over as Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals). This order indicated that the appeal would be considered expeditiously with the new appointment.
  
  In light of the Office Order and the assurance by the respondents' counsel, the court decided not to entertain the writ petition. Instead, the court disposed of the petition by directing that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the previous order should be heard and resolved by the Commissioner (Appeals) promptly, within a maximum of four weeks from the date of the court's judgment.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 904
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled that the claim for refund on goods exported availing drawback of Service tax was not admissible for the period April - June, 2008. The amendment to Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-2007, which omitted the condition of non-availment of drawback, could not be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the benefit under the notification was denied to the assesses who had availed duty drawback on export. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals of the Revenue were allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 903
  

  Demand - commission from the banks and non-banking financial corporation for acting as their direct selling agents/authorized dealers/recovery agents - Business Auxiliary Services - Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 - First Proviso to the Notification is to the effect that nothing contained in the notification shall apply to taxable services provided by a person under a brand name or trade name whether registered or not of another person - The notification does not put restriction with reference to the brand name of the service recipient but the same debars the benefit to the service provider, if the brand name or trade name of another person is being used as service provider - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 900
  

  Interest - Import - Held That:- . As the differential duty has been paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods, therefore, we find that the setting aside the interest on the delayed payment of differential duty is not sustainable.

  Penalty - Classification under particular heading - Held That:- Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent has suppressed the material facts with intend to evade duty; hence respondents are not liable for penalty.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 899
  
  Issues: Revenue appeal against inclusion of ship demurrage charges in assessable value.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that ship demurrage charges should not be included in the assessable value of goods imported in August 2001. The appellant argued that prior to 26/09/2006, ship demurrage charges were not to be included in the assessable value based on various Tribunal decisions. The Revenue, however, relied on Customs Determination of Value of imported Goods Rules, 2007, stating that demurrage charges should be part of transportation and included in the assessable value.
  
  2. The appellant cited several decisions, including Indian Oil Corporation cases, where the Tribunal held that ship demurrage charges should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The Revenue referred to a Board Circular from 2001 to support their stance. Notably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and review petition in the Indian Oil Corporation case, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
  
  3. The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench decision in the Indian Oil Corporation case was followed consistently in subsequent cases, affirming that ship demurrage charges should not be included in the assessable value of goods before 26/09/2006. Given the precedents and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal accordingly.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 898
  

  Demand - Time limitation - Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. reported in (1991 -TMI - 42988 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), wherein in para 13 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy, the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to a party or the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains, that the knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive is thus an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be said to have been concluded and binding on him, and that in view of this, it is the date of communication which has to be treated as the relevant date for counting limitation period and since the order had been received on 27-1-2007 and the refund claim has been filed on 24-1-08 and the same was within time - Decided in favor of the assessee by way od remand

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 896
  

  Clandestine removal - Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held as legal & proper where penalties imposed under Section [(sic) Rule] 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 & U/R 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002 have been vacated - Tribunal has found that there is no material or evidence of any kind to support the findings, that there was clandestine removal, which did not tally with the physical stock - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 895
  

  Waiver of penalty - Rules 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Tribunal has not committed any error in finding that no penalty could be imposed in the case, as there is conflicting opinion of the benches of the Tribunal, on account of which, it could not be said that Cenvat Credit in respect of input or capital goods was wrongly taken or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules - Appeal is dismised

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 894
  

  Waiver of predeposit - Reversal of Cenvat credit - Voluntary payment of duty - Held that: assessee did not have any intention to evade payment of duty and inadmissible credit taken on the ground of input short received excess credit than the duty paid input and CENVAT credit on the basis of the extra copy of the invoice is not due to the intention to evade payment of duty and is only a bona fide mistake and at the best it can be termed as procedural infringement and not misdeclaration or suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 886
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - C&F Agent - Time limitation - The terms of the contract revealed that the applicants were supplying the spare parts of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. which were further being sold by them in the State of Rajasthan - In the present case, the goods are being sold by the appellant to independent persons and invoices are being given in their own name and sales-tax is being paid on them - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 885
  

  Seizure - Bill of entry declared no Customs Duty was attracted - Chartered Engineer report goods declared to be re-rollable material exigible to 5 per cent and 10 per cent - Held That:- When duty was paid at the stand of department itself for first consignment and also willing it pay for second consignment, seizure for more than 2 months cannot be justified. Further Seizure has not been effected by authorised officer. We direct immediate provisional release of goods.

  ---

1 ....202122232425262728........ 47