|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 658 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 202
Goods cleared to EOU got returned back as they were found defective – goods cleared second time under CT 3 certificate without paying duty - Revenue contention that appellant had to reverse the credit taken and should not have cleared the goods without payment of duty under CT3 certificate is not justified because there is no need to duty on clearance to EOU – however procedure was not followed properly but there is no intention to evade duty so demand is time barred
-
2007 (9) TMI 201
Grinding room/enclosure - in the present case the erection was done piece by piece and along with civil work and it had brought in existence immovable property - They contend that it becomes an immovable property, as it cannot be removed and if it is removed, it becomes a waste - so no duty is leviable thereon - appellants being young entrepreneurs held bonafide belief that they are eligible for certain exemption as well as for waiver of duty - penalty in this matter is restricted to Rs.25,000
-
2007 (9) TMI 200
Application for rectification of mistake - issue involved in this case is as to whether Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is applicable in respect of clearance of Begasse emerging during the manufacture of sugar - issue has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the assessee – In remand proceedings Comm.. (A) did not follow & consider decision of SC – application is allowed
-
2007 (9) TMI 199
Removal of goods without paying duty and without the cover of excise invoice – goods were seized demand raised for suppression of facts – goods were fully entered in RG 1 register and the appellant being a new assessee was not aware that he is not entitled to temporarily remove the goods to another premises of their own factory, which was separated by road - no infirmity in the order of the Comm.(A) which set aside demand, interest and penalty - Revenue’s appeal is rejected.
-
2007 (9) TMI 198
On the basis of recovery of one letter dated 5-8-99 sent by Metal Masters duty demand and penalty thereon have been confirmed - clearance without payment of duty - letter has not been fully examined - letter refers to sending of inputs as noted therein i.e. the quantity of Copper Pipes and Tubes for the straightening purpose - activity of straightening does not result any manufacture, hence no duty is liable to be paid thereon - no other evidence to corroborate the charges - demand set aside
-
2007 (9) TMI 197
Baharain national – Comm (A)_ dismissed appeal on grounds of non maintainability - when an individual is absent from India a person duly authorized by him can sign CA-I form - appellant was not in a position to sign the document as she was in Bahrain during relevant time – so General Power of Attorney holder has signed the CA-I form – Comm.(A) could have given him an opportunity to produce the power of attorney by giving atleast one adjournment – violation of natural justice – matter remanded
-
2007 (9) TMI 196
Payments made to assessee outside India – mobilization charges paid to assessee by ONGC had no nexus with the actual amount incurred by assessee for transportation of drilling units of rigs to India – thus, mobilization charges weren’t reimbursement of expenditure – in view of fictional taxing provision u/s 44BB, AO is justified in adding the amount received by assessee towards mobilization charges for the purpose of imposing income tax
-
2007 (9) TMI 195
Period in question prior to amendment to definition of output service u/r 2(p) – assessee is entitled to utilize the in respect of input service towards payment of service tax on GTA services – freight deemed as output service for recipient of service during impugned period
-
2007 (9) TMI 194
Issues:
Service Tax on free service of cars by authorized service stations.
Analysis:
The appeal in this case arose from an Order-in-Appeal confirming Service Tax on the appellants for providing free service of cars under the category of "Authorized Service Station" for cars sold through their agencies. The Revenue contended that since the appellants received reimbursement for the services, Service Tax was leviable. However, the appellants argued that previous Commissionerates had dropped similar proceedings, and a previous Tribunal order had held that Service Tax is not applicable to free services provided by the assessee. The learned DR cited a Ministry circular stating that dealers selling vehicles through agencies and providing free service are not required to discharge Service Tax.
The appellants clarified that they did not receive any reimbursement for the free services provided by them in relation to the cars sold by them. They had discharged Service Tax for reimbursements received for free services of cars sold by other dealers. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was noted that unless evidence of reimbursement is shown, demands for Service Tax on free services are based on assumptions and presumptions. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders and allowed the appeal based on the precedent that Service Tax is not leviable for free services provided by authorized agencies for cars sold by them.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the precedent that Service Tax is not applicable to free services provided by authorized agencies for cars sold by them.
-
2007 (9) TMI 193
Payment of duty on exempted good (waste & scrap) by mistake doesn’t make them other than exempted – Not. 62/95 exempting coaches, coach components & containers as waste & scrap so provision of not. 89/95 aren’t attracted in this case & assessee is entitled to benefit of that notification
-
2007 (9) TMI 192
Goods (Gutka Pan Masala) removed clandestinely – demand justified but will be re-calculated after deducting excise duty from sale price - SCN served to partner is valid notice on firm if partner has asked copies of relied upon document to made effective defense in reply to SCN
-
2007 (9) TMI 191
Credit on inputs/chemicals for purification of water used in production of molasses & in production of steam for power plant – credit not deniable on basis that during off-season electricity is not used in mfg. of sugar because it is used for maintenance of plant etc. during that time
-
2007 (9) TMI 190
Since assessee was assessed to a loss for the A.Y. 1976-77 to 1978-79, thus for the AY 1979-80, assessee was not required to compute advance tax as per sec. 209(1)(a) or file a statement of advance tax – interest levied for non-furnishing of statement is not justified
-
2007 (9) TMI 189
Amounts payable to raw material supplier, H for purchases in 1975 – dispute regarding liability continued – suit for recovery was filed by H in 1978 – mercantile system – held that deduction can’t be disallowed for year 1979-80 merely because liability wasn’t a statutory one – deduction allowed
-
2007 (9) TMI 188
When AO satisfied that annual rent of house property was much lower than expected rent & no standard rent has been fixed by rent controller then AO should determine annual value & expected rent by following guidelines of Rent control act not on basis of rent paid by other tenants in premises.
-
2007 (9) TMI 187
In impugned case Appellant, service recipient has borne incidence of duty so has locus standi to file the refund claim - provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable - Issue has not been decided on merits and on unjust enrichment – Matter remanded to Original Authority for de novo consideration
-
2007 (9) TMI 186
Agent appointed in Bangladesh by exporter for getting orders –explanation added subsequently to Section 65(105) cannot be applied for the period in question - held that mere activity of forwarding or booking orders by itself will not bring the Indenting Agent under the C&F category – appeal allowed
-
2007 (9) TMI 185
Appellant, consignment agent – In view of decision of tribunal in similar case, ‘Consignment Agent’ cannot be brought within the category of ‘C & F Agent’ for the purpose of paying Service Tax - following the ratio of the this decision, appeal are allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 184
Tribunal deleted additions made by A.O. on account of undeclared payments made for purchase of immovable property – case has already been addressed by the tribunal and finding of fact recorded by tribunal couldn’t be made subject matter of reference
-
2007 (9) TMI 183
Issues involved:
Interpretation of revenue expenditure vs. capital expenditure for the replacement of Turbine Rotor in a captive power plant.
Analysis:
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of whether the expenditure on replacing a Turbine Rotor should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure for the Assessment Year 1979-80.
2. The respondent, a captive power plant, claimed the cost of Turbine Rotor replacement as revenue expenditure, which was disallowed by the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal found that the replacement was part of ordinary business operations and not a separate machinery, thus accepted the claim.
3. The standing counsel argued that the expenditure should be capital as the Turbine Rotor is a plant, citing a House of Lords judgment. In contrast, the counsel for the assessee contended it was a repair, referring to a Division Bench judgment.
4. The Tribunal found the Turbine Rotor integral to the Turbo Generator Set, not an independent machinery, raising the question of whether the replacement expenditure is revenue or capital.
5. The Court analyzed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanodia Cold Storage, emphasizing that replacement of parts does not create a new asset and if it maintains the existing setup efficiently, it qualifies as revenue expenditure.
6. Referring to the Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., the Court highlighted that current repairs aim to preserve and maintain existing assets without creating new advantages.
7. Distinguishing a previous case, the Court noted that the Turbine Rotor was part of the Turbo Generator Set and not separate tools, concluding that the replacement expenditure was revenue and not capital.
8. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the expenditure on Turbine Rotor replacement was revenue expenditure, answering the question in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
