|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 497 of 497 Records
-
2005 (6) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"(i) Whether Tribunal was right in directing AO to disallow the entire claim of depreciation if the facts are found that the scaffolding materials at the time of termination of lease is not recovered? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in exercising jurisdiction which results in enhancement of the assessment on the appellant when the Tribunal has no jurisdiction? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation on scaffolding material is not to be allowed at the rate of 100 %.?" - Tribunal went off on a tangent by observing that the facts need to be verified by the Assessing Officer as to whether the scaffolding materials have been really leased out or have been sold. In fact, it was nobody's case before any of the authorities that there was any disguised sale of scaffolding materials. A perusal of the entire record shows that the only dispute before the authorities related to the rate of depreciation i.e., as to whether it was 33 1/3 per cent, or 100 per cent. The Tribunal had not even put the assessee on notice about the above observation at the time of hearing, and no opportunity was given to the assessee about the point raised suo motu by the Tribunal. In, view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and hold that the scaffolding materials are entitled to 100 per cent, depreciation treating the transaction as a lease. The appeal is allowed
-
2005 (6) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) on interest earned on surplus funds of the school (run by the assessee-trust) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81?" - It is, thus, obvious that granting exemption to the income of the educational institutions is to enable such institutions to utilise the moneys available with them for the purpose of running the educational institutions. The source from which the moneys are received is of no consequence, what is relevant is the application of income. So long as the income of the institution, which solely exists for educational purpose and not for earning profit, is applied for the educational purpose, such income of the institution is exempted under section 10(22) of the Act. The question referred is, thus, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2005 (6) TMI 16 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat –Alleged that credits earned on inputs used in products of Chapter- 39 of CET used in demand towards products of Chapter-84 ibid prior to the date of amendment – Credit not allowed as well as penalty set aside.
-
2005 (6) TMI 15 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Central Excise - Demand & Penalty - Thread manufacturing units involved in impugned cases - Procurement of raw materials under fictitious trading firms- no proper records of invoices and sale proceeds - Use brand name of others in respect of one appellant-Charge against appellant established by adjudicating authority
-
2005 (6) TMI 14 - CESTAT - CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit - (i) payment of 8% under rule 6 (ii) where appellant recovered the amount as excise duty payable
-
2005 (6) TMI 12 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat – Obsolete Capital goods on which Credit taken - capital goods become obsolete due to passage of time
-
2005 (6) TMI 11 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Illegal availment of Cenvat/Modvat - Invoice recovered from manufacturer’s place shows different description of goods than invoices produced by appellant
-
2005 (6) TMI 10 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Structures whether movable or immovable goods – Test of Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... ructures are specifically meant for the dry dock, which will be a fixed structure and therefore the fabricated parts cannot be marketable and in that view they are not excisable. Similarly the Gantry rails as can be seen from the photos are fixed on which the Gantry crane moves. For the same reasons as stated earlier they also cannot be called as goods. In these circumstances, in our view there is no merit in the Revenue s demand at all. Since the appeal is allowable on merits alone we are not going into the issue of limitation. The entire demand is liable to be quashed for the reasons stated above. Hence, there is no need to consider the points raised in Revenue s appeal. Summing up we hold that the items fabricated by M/s. AFCONS are not goods as they are not marketable and also in view of the fact that they had become part of immoveable structure. Hence, the OIO has no merits. The same is set aside. We also dismiss Revenue s appeal. (Pronounced in open Court on 22-6-2005)
-
2005 (6) TMI 9 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tion of the same. This fact reflects upon his knowledge that the Management Consultancy firm floated by him is required to be registered with the Central Excise department for the purposes of service tax and is required to pay service tax, in spite of that he did not pay service tax for two years. As such, I am of the view that the appellant is liable to penalty. 7.In view of the above, the appellant is required to be put to some terms of the deposit for the purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, I direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) towards penalty within a period of eight weeks from today. Subject to deposit of the above, balance amount of penalty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed, during pendency of the appeal. On ascertaining compliance on 24-8-2005, when their appeal itself would be taken up for final disposal after ascertaining compliance with the above order. (Dictated in Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 8 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Excess and short payment – Excess payment of service tax to be adjusted against deficiency in respect of payment of service tax.
-
2005 (6) TMI 7 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Clearing and forwarding agent – Mere distribution of goods delivered at their premises by the manufacturer, not liable to service tax as ‘Clearing and Forwarding”
-
2005 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT , NEW DELHI
Issues - Clearing and Forwarding Agent ... ... ... ... ..... rview of clearing and forwarding operation, as the goods are not directly or indirectly handled by him and no service tax is payble on the commission received by him on account of Del Credere Agency. Even learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that these services of the Appellants are not liable to service tax and they are not liable to pay tax on the commission received by them. Therefore, confirmation of service tax on that count on the Appellants is not maintainable and the same is set aside. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the issue involved the penalty imposed on the Appellants under Section 76 of the service tax when the tax had been paid prior to the issuance of show cause notice, is set aside. The impugned order accordingly, stands modified. The appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of in the above terms, while the appeal of the Revenue for enhancement of penalty, is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 5 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Clearing and forwarding agent – Service tax – Service rendered in relation to clearing and forwarding operation in any manner –taxable
-
2005 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 76 ... ... ... ... ..... ny service provider who got registered up to 30-10-2004, are not liable for any penal action. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in view of the immunity from penal action under this Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme, no penalty is imposable on the respondents, as they have paid service tax prior to 30-10-2004. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents are registered prior to the Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme and not registered this immunity scheme. Therefore, are liable to penal action. 6. I find that the service provider who registered and paid service tax during Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme up to 30-10-2004, not liable to any penalty. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondents to pay service tax along with the interest prior to 30-10-2004 are also not liable for penalty. In view of these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeals. Therefore all the appeals are dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Custom House Agent - Penalty for late payment of tax u/s 76, Penalty for Failure to file return u/s 77 and Waiver of Penalty u/s 80
-
2005 (6) TMI 2 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Mandap Keeper – rent from Godwon - whether chargeable to service tax ... ... ... ... ..... 56) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal). 2. I have heard both sides in the matter and I have perused the records. The appellant has produced the detailed income statement for each year duly notorised and supported by an affidavit of the appellant who is a proprietrix. There is no reason to disbelieve this financial statement even on oath and by the supporting affidavit and documents. Therefore, the Service Tax has to be levied only on income earned from Marriage Hall and Function Hall and not on the income earned on the Godown. The income, which works out on letting out of Marriage Hall and Function Hall, works out to Rs. 1,23,000/- and the Service Tax thereon works out to Rs. 8,775/-. Hence, the Service Tax confirmed to an extent of Rs. 25,029/- is reduced to Rs. 8,775/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- in the light of the cited judgments. The appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned order. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2005 (6) TMI 1 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 76 and 77 - waiver of penalty u/s 80 - default of payment of Service tax - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is the appellant's contention that their explanation of the delay was not considered. What appears from the Order-in-Original is that their explanation was considered. The only explanation offered by the party is that they had financial difficulties and hence happened to pay tax belatedly. As regards non-filing of returns, they can have no such explanation. A plea of financial hardships cannot, by itself, be a satisfactory cause of delayed payment of service tax. Otherwise, every assessee can escape penal liability u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It needs to be mentioned that financial difficulty is not a circumstance beyond one's control. It is something, for which remedies are available in the commercial world. What Section 80 envisages is a cause or reason (for delayed payment of service tax) which is beyond the assessee's control and could be brought home to a quasi judicial authority to its satisfaction. In the present case, no such circumstance is obtaining and, therefore, Section 80 would not come to the rescue of the assessee.
The question now is what should be the quanta of penalties under Sections 76 & 77. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty u/s 76 to Rs. One lakh, in an apparent exercise of discretion. This Tribunal does not want to sit in judgment over such exercise of discretion. In the result, the penalty of Rs. One lakh will stand affirmed.
I am of the view that, in determining the quantum of penalty, regard should be had to the fact that the penalty imposable under this provision for a major part of the period of dispute was Rs. 2,000/- only. Consequently I would limit Section 77 penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. Except in this respect, the impugned order is sustained.
The appeal stands disposed of.
....
|
