|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 632 Records
-
2006 (1) TMI 613
... ...
... ... ..... e only on 12-7-04. Hence, I do not find any justification for imposition of various penalties under the different sections of the Act, as the party had a justifiable reason to believe that they were not covered under the Service Tax. Therefore, I am inclined to waive the said penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78”. 6. I find that there was a problem in classifying the services of the appellant and hence the Board vide its letter dt. 1-3-04, issued clarification. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that there is no justification in imposition of penalties on the respondents. 7. In view of the facts and circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order-in-appeal which set aside the penalties. The appeal of the Deptt. is dismissed to the extent it challenges the order-in-appeal in respect of setting aside of the penalties by the adjudicating authority. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Order dictated in the open Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 612
... ...
... ... ..... , there is no tangible and logical reason as to why the law abiding assessee who had got himself registered more or less in time and had also started paying the Service Tax along with interest, much before the new scheme became operational, shall be denied the benefit of waiver of the penal provisions referred to above for late registration, delay in filing the relevant returns etc. all of which are procedural in nature." 4. I find that an identical issue was also before the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Bharat Security Services & Worker’s Const. 2005 (188) ELT 454 (Trib. - Delhi), wherein the Tribunal had dismissed all the appeals filed by the Department on the very same ground. 5. In view of the above facts and the decided case law, I find no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondents are not liable for penalties. In view of these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeals and, therefore, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 611
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee with regard to 80-G on the ground that the same was a fresh evidence and no application has been made under Rule 46A to admit the same. The evidence to show that the amount of ₹ 25,000/- paid to an institution which is registered u/s 80-G. has been filed as Annexure 'E'. This evidence was also filed before the CIT (A) who rejected the same on the ground of being additional evidence. 48. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, as we have admitted the additional evidence, we restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the certificate and, thereafter, grant the proper relief to the assessee u/s 80-G. We direct accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 49. Ground No.5 was not pressed by the Ld. AR and the same is dismissed being not pressed. 50. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid.
-
2006 (1) TMI 610
... ...
... ... ..... issioner was not justified in taking the view, in contra to the Board’s letter and the Notification. The appellants have maintained the records of the inputs used in the photography, nowhere it is stated in the circular and Notification that the inputs used in the photography should be mentioned in the invoices/bills issued to the customers. The reasoning given by the Commissioner is not sustainable. In view of the clarification given in the Board’s letter and the Notification itself the denial of benefit by the lower authorities is not justified and not correct in law. The appellants are eligible for the benefit of deduction in terms of the Board’s circular and the Notification. The order passed by the impugned authorities is not correct in law as the same is contra to the Board’s letter and the Notification. The impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (1) TMI 609
... ...
... ... ..... ecutive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. 11. The above said judgment in no way helps the stand of the Government Advocate. The power of the Government is not questioned in this case. The manner in which the order of detention is passed and as to whether the order of detention was passed with clear application of mind alone, are the issues involved in this case. 12. In view of the discrepancies found in the documents relied on by the detaining authority, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of detention dated 15.6.2005 is vitiated on the principle of non-application of mind. 13. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 15.6.2005 is set aside. The petitioner/detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
-
2006 (1) TMI 608
Whether the High Court was not justified in accepting the explanation regarding receipt of ₹ 300/- by the accused as being towards Tagai loan?
Whether the conclusion of guilt is inescapable?
-
2006 (1) TMI 607
Whether charges framed against the appellant-delinquent officer are vague?
Whether non-supply of the documents sought by the appellant vitiated the enquiry and the action of the management of the respondent Bank in removing the appellant from service as a disciplinary measure?
Whether placing reliance on statements previously recorded by CBI by the Enquiry Officer has vitiated the enquiry?
Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse for want of legal evidence?
-
2006 (1) TMI 606
... ...
... ... ..... pondents states that the appellant may file his application in accordance with law within the stipulated date i.e. 31.3.2006. In case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal pending before this Hon'ble Court, he would be entitled to file revised entitlement. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The appellant to file informal paper books consisting the records of lower courts. The paper books may be prepared in any way not necessarily by printing.
-
2006 (1) TMI 605
... ...
... ... ..... pellant may file his application in accordance with law within the stipulated date i.e. 31.3.2006. In case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal pending before this Hon'ble Court, he would be entitled to file revised entitlement. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The appellant to file informal paper books consisting the records of lower courts. The paper books may be prepared in any way not necessarily by printing.
-
2006 (1) TMI 604
Whether the dissolution of Assembly under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India can be ordered to prevent the staking of claim by a political party on the ground that the majority has been obtained by illegal means?
Is it permissible to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution without its first meeting taking place?
Whether the proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal and unconstitutional?
If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, is it necessary to direct status quo ante as on 7th March, 2005 or 4th March, 2005?
What is the scope of Article 361 granting immunity to the Governor?
-
2006 (1) TMI 603
Applications for allotment of shares - camouflage transactions / accommodation entries - Whether, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the CIT(A), when the appellant has produced the books of accounts to show the application made by the assessee by different applicants for allotment of shares”? - HELD THAT:- We notice that whenever a company invites applications for allotment of shares from different applicants, there is no procedure contemplated to find out the genuineness of the address or the genunity of the applicants before allotting the shares. If for any reasons the address given in the applications were to be incorrect or for any reasons if the said applicants have changed their residence or the notices sent by the assessing officer has not been received by such applicants, the assessee/company cannot be blamed. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal of the revenue only relying upon the statement of Sri Anil Raj Mehta, a Chartered Accountant.
It is also seen by us that he has opened a joint account with three applicants viz., Sri Radheshyam. Sri Ramesh N Bothra and Sri Jabbar Singh. At the First instance he has denied the connection with that of the 10 persons and later on when he was confronted with the introductory forms of the bank accounts of aforesaid persons, he has admitted that he had opened joint account with three persons and introduced remaining some of them to the bank while opening the accounts. From this it is clear that the Tribunal so also the assessing officer could not have relied upon the sworn statement of Sri Anil raj Mehta.
Thus, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the assessing officer and confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A) by answering the question of law framed in favour of the assessee.
-
2006 (1) TMI 602
... ...
... ... ..... admitting that they are also providing the consultancy in respect of design etc. In addition to this, they are also testing the materials to find out physical property which does not amount to consultancy. The demand is confirmed after taking into consideration the consolidated entry regarding income from technical consultancy engineering service. The appellant also produced the evidence by way of producing the request letter from various institutes and organization which shows that the material was sent only for testing and also produced the bills for testing. In these circumstances, we find it is a fit case for re-consideration by adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and appellant to produce evidence in support of their claim. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court on 10-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 601
... ...
... ... ..... ted. Issue notice confined to question of ‘confiscation’.
-
2006 (1) TMI 600
Whether the cargo transported by the carrier would be governed by the Hague Rules on account of Clause 2 (General Paramount Clause) or by Clause 9 of BOL?
Whether it cannot be said that arrest of the ship was obtained by the plaintiffs suppressing material facts which would warrant stay of suit by the Court?
-
2006 (1) TMI 599
... ...
... ... ..... 1992 to November 1996 majority or the said period being prior to the insertion of Section 11AC and when we are not upholding the ingredients of proviso to Section 11A(1), to be applicable in the facts of this case, no penalty under Section 11AC and or interest under Section 11AB or penalty under Rule 173Q can be upheld. The joint penalty under Section 11AC and under Rule 173Q as ordered also cannot be upheld. In view of the decisions in the cases of Lauls Ltd v. CCE - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 711 and Agarwal Pharmaceuticals v. CCE - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 190. In view of the matter, even interest under Section 11AB when no duty demands on the goods plasticol could be determined, inasmuch as the said product cannot be found to be having a shelf life and or marketable and hence excisable. The entire duty demands, penalty and interest demands cannot be sustained. 3.2 The order is required to be set aside and appeal ordered to be allowed accordingly. (Pronounced in Court on 18-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 598
... ...
... ... ..... submission to be accepted to call or rejection of the websites published. 2.5 The instruction manuals published by the assessee, guiding the user of the Mosaic Tiles, indicate that if found defective after application, the same should be replaced by a new Mosaic Tile and it has been incorrectly interpreted to mean that new Flat Ceramic Pieces would replace the same. In any case, replacement of part of the mosaic tiles by a piece will not, ipso facto, indicate the marketability. 2.6 In the Notice dated 28-7-2003, involving a demand of ₹ 9,00,248.70 (Rupees nine lakhs two hundred forty-eight and paise seventy only) on the intermediate produce, in any case, cannot be assessed inasmuch as during the period of dispute in that case, the mosaic tiles were made totally and hence demand of these intermediate products would not survive. 3.1 In view of the findings herein, the order impugned is to be set aside and appeal allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 25-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 597
... ...
... ... ..... i, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2006 (1) TMI 596
... ...
... ... ..... eer Bhandari, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 595
Whether a statutory body or authority which answers the definition of 'State' under Article 12, for purposes of Part-III and IV of the Constitution of India, is an 'appropriate government' for purposes of section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Whether GMIDC and MJP can be termed as 'appropriate government' (that is 'State Government' having regard to definition under section 7 of the Act) for purposes of section 9-A of the Act?
Whether the contract dated 19.5.1996 entered into by the Appellant with the State Government, continued to be a contract with the State Government, after its transfer to GMIDC with effect from 1.10.1998?
Whether the Appellant incurred any disqualification under section 9-A of the Act, on account of his contracts dated 19.5.1996, 31.12.1998 and 12.4.1999?
-
2006 (1) TMI 594
Whether there is no particular format of a complaint?
Whether a petition addressed to the magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed, and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, as in the instant case, is a complaint?
........
|
