|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 490 Records
-
2006 (6) TMI 479 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es it clear that the tourism is declared as an industry. Thus, as the petitioners hotels are coming under the definition of industry , they were rightly granted exemption under the KST Act. For the aforesaid reasons, these petitioners are entitled to for the said benefit of tax exemption for the unavailed portion of the period mentioned in the exemption certificates. In view of the same, the following order is made Petitioners are entitled to avail the tax exemption benefit granted to them earlier for the unavailed portion of the period prescribed under the exemption certificate issued to them earlier under the provisions of the KST Act. Consequently, the endorsement issued by the authorities withholding the said exemption and the assessments orders passed against the petitioners for the period for which they were granted exemption from paying tax, stand quashed. Consequently the impugned demand notices are quashed. Writ petitions are allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute.
-
2006 (6) TMI 478 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to bring to purchase tax in either event of consumption of goods in the manufacture of goods for sale or consumption of goods in any other manner. The court held that once goods are utilised in the construction of buildings the goods cease to exist or cease to be available in that form for sale or purchase so as to attract the tax and therefore the correct meaning to be attributed to the said provision would be that tax will be attracted when such goods are consumed in the manufacture of other goods or are consumed otherwise. Even if water is consumed otherwise section 5A of the Act would apply. That being the legal position, we are of the view that water charges paid by the petitioner are exigible to purchase tax under section 5A of the Act even if not consumed for making of the end-product since he has consumed it otherwise. Revision is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal would stand set aside. Consequently the order passed by the assessing authority is restored.
-
2006 (6) TMI 477 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rtment. Additional Commissioner was supposed to act fairly and without prejudice. His duty was not to pass a verdict in the matter of raid in favour of his departmental colleague who was seemingly involved in corruption, but to consider the assessment order in the light of ST-1/35 forms and other forms which were available to him. These forms could be considered even at revision stage by him, if the forms were otherwise in order. But in his zeal to bail out his colleague, he acted with the motive of supporting the version of the assessing authority. We, therefore, set aside the order dated April 29, 2005 of the Additional Commissioner-III and remand back this matter for passing an order on the merit of the assessment order and not about the merits of the raid and recovery of forms. He shall give due consideration to the ST-1/35 forms and other forms recovered during the raid and pass an appropriate order as per law. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 476 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mainly relied on Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.s case 1990 77 STC 182 (AP). The learned Advocate-General has also relied on another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Union of India 2003 130 STC 1. However, this judgment has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 145 STC 91. For these reasons, we do not think that any illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the orders impugned in these revisions. Both the revisions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ Petition Nos. 21313, 21314, 21315, 21316, 21317, 21318, 21319, 26921, 26988, 26989, 26990, 26991, 27538 and 27542 of 2005 These writ petitions are against the orders passed in consequence to the orders passed by the Tribunal which were under challenge before us in T.R.E.V.C. Nos. 213 and 214 of 2004. Since the revisions have been dismissed, these writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 475 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner has paid the penalty without any protest and without showing cause to the show cause notice issued to him and that therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in this case. The said contention also cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the petitioner might have paid the penalty immediately on the next day of issuance of show cause notice, that too, without any protest, obviously with an anxiety to get the goods released forthwith. Merely because the petitioner has paid the amounts of penalty without protest, it cannot be said that he has forfeited his right to question the validity of the show cause notice. In view of the above, the show cause notice dated February 25, 2006 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Tax Check-post vide annexure C , is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The amount of penalty paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice, annexure C , shall be refunded to him. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.
-
2006 (6) TMI 474 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... apex Court also held that even if different commercial goods may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that it had substantial change in its character of being stone. In the case in hand the leaves had been processed to make it human consumable, as such it does not change the substance in nature and the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the dealer was not reselling the tea leaves in the same form and condition in which he had purchased, had no force. In processed tea, in view of the pronouncements of the apex Court, the form and condition of tea was not lost at all. In view of what has been discussed above, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the revision petition is liable to be allowed. The revision petition is allowed and the order dated April 19, 2005 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside with no order as to costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 473 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o repeat the same. We have to bear in mind that we are interpreting a fiscal legislation and primary importance has to be given to the language used. Question of any equity does not arise and it is not permissible to read probable intention of the Legislature into the enacted provisions. (underlining is by me(1)) In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders vide annexures A and C , dated July 29, 2004 and August 5, 2004 passed by the first and second respondents, respectively, and the demand notice vide annexure D are liable to be quashed, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not liable to pay resale tax under section 6-B of the Act. In view of the above, following order is made The orders vide annexures A and C dated July 29, 2004 and August 5, 2004 passed by the first and second respondents herein, respectively, and the demand notice vide annexure D are quashed. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. (1)Here italicised
-
2006 (6) TMI 472 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he amended scheme of 1995. In a situation, such as the one at hand, this court has no option, but to interfere and stop the respondents from realising sales tax for the period specified in the Industrial Policy of 1991 read with the notification, dated August 16, 1995, aforementioned. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned notification, dated November 5, 1999, aforementioned, to the extent that the same is repugnant to the Industrial Policy of 1991 and to the extent that it has the effect of withdrawing the facilities provided under the Scheme of 1995 notified on August 16, 1995, is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed not to force the petitioner-company to pay sales tax for the period, which the petitionercompany, but for the notification, dated November 5, 1999, aforementioned, is not liable to pay. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0 60 by the Central Income-tax Officer was final and the agricultural income, viz., 60 percent of total income, is only available to the State authorities for levy of agricultural income-tax and any deduction allowable under the Central Income-tax Act cannot be added back thereby increasing the quantum of income beyond 60 percent . In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the revision of assessment, holding that deduction allowed in respect of 40 percent of business income cannot be brought to assessment as agricultural income. 12. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is not empowered to revise the assessment by recomputing the income, in the light of amendment to section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 1999 with retrospective effect from 1992. Accordingly, we dismiss both the revisions answering the questions of law referred to above against the State and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 470 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r business function. 7. We find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandap Assn. (supra) upheld that the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 65 of Finance Act considering all the aspects. The issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was in respect of the liability of Service Tax as Mandap Keeper on Kalyana Mandapams and Mundapams, which is providing place for conducting marriages and the Hon ble Court held that service tax is leviable as Mandapams as Mandap Keeper. The reliance of the appellant in the case of Krishnapur Mutt (supra) will also not help the case of the appellant, as in that case the marriage is organized without any consideration that too in the Mutt. In view of the above decision of Hon ble Supreme Court which is in respect of Kalyana Mandapams which provide place for consideration for organizing marriage, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 6-6-2006)
-
2006 (6) TMI 469 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, cannot be applied to assessment of the net wealth of a company. In the present case, the land is registered in the name of the society. The building was also constructed by it. Further, property tax is levied on the society, water supply bill, electricity bill and insurance policy of the premises are in the name of the society. Considering these facts coupled with the legal position discussed in the preceding paras, we answer the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the flat occupied by the assessee continues to belong to the society and, therefore, the value of the same cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee-company. Since no other issue is involved in this appeal, we dispose of the appeal itself. The order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) is hereby set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to exclude the value of flat from the net wealth of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2006 (6) TMI 468 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Inclusion of expenses incurred - reimbursement of expenses ... ... ... ... ..... latter. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that, in a similar matter, prima facie case was found for another assessee in an appeal against a similar demand of tax vide Sangamitra Services Agency v. CCE 2006 5 STT 85 (Chennai - CESTAT). Hence there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts demanded by the lower authorities in the present case.
-
2006 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... finally settled by the five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner 2000 (117) E.L.T. 578 (Tri. - LB) . Since the issue of inclusion of the value of the dies and moulds to the assessable value had to be settled by the Full Bench of the Tribunal, the respondents cannot be faulted with for non-inclusion of the cost in the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured by him. As such, having paid the demand of the duty, the setting aside of the penalty and interest, by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and does not require any interference. rdquo I am in agreement with above observation and finding of the Tribunal. The reduced penalty of Rs. 16,000/- as per the impugned order is also not sustainable in view of the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal cited supra. In the circumstances the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 465 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Money credit - Cash recovery ... ... ... ... ..... under examination by Board. 2. The matter has been examined. Board is of the view that Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944, requires a person liable to pay duty to deposit any amount collected in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods from the buyer of the goods in any manner as representing duty of excise. Therefore, in cases where duty collected has been deposited with the Government, Section 11D shall not apply. This position shall not undergo any change if the money credit available with the manufacturer is utilized to pay duty on any finished excisable product and this duty is collected from the buyer. Pending cases may be finalized accordingly. 3. Trade and field formation may be informed suitably. 4. Receipt of the same may be acknowledged. 5. Hindi version shall follow. 3. In view of the above Circular the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 463 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Re-export - Relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... xported within six months from the date of actual clearance, therefore, the denial of benefit of notification was not sustainable. The contention of revenue is that date of import is filing of bill of entry. In the present case, the goods were exported beyond period of six months from the date of filing of bill of entry and appellant had not sought any extension, therefore, the benefit was rightly denied. 3. emsp We find that board vide circular dated 3-6-97 clarified the position in respect of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The Board clarified that the time period for six months stipulated in the notification for the purpose of re-export is to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of the goods and not from the date of filing of bill of entry. In view of this clarification, we find as the goods were re-exported within six months from the date of clearance, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 458 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... pter. There is no identical Chapter Note under Chapter 68, in which case, the Supreme Court judgment would apply. It was only on account of the introduction of Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 25 about the processes, which have been otherwise held as not amounting to manufacture by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court are required to be treated as manufacture. If that be so, the goods would prima facie, fall under Chapter 25. We also note that the Notification availed by the appellants prescribes Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. as duty in terms of marble slabs whether they fall under Chapter 25 or under Chapter 68. 5. emsp At this stage, the learned Advocate offers to make deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs for the purpose of hearing of the appeal, which we consider as fair offer and accept the same. The appellant is accordingly, directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs (rupees twenty five lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 29-8-2008. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 457 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... -utilisation of credit. On this being pointed out to Shri Munshi, he volunteers to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs which in our view is not sufficient to safeguard the interest of revenue. 7. emsp Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the appellants do not have a prima facie case on merit in their favour but considering the plea of financial difficulty made by them, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs). As a time limit has been fixed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court for final hearing and disposal of the appeal, the appellants are directed to make the pre-deposit as directed above within two weeks from today and report compliance on 3-7-08. 8. emsp The Registry is also directed to list the case for final hearing on 3-7-08, so that the case can be heard and disposed of after ascertaining compliance from the appellants. Both sides should take notice of the date fixed for regular hearing of the case. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 455 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand and penalty - Cenvat/Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... n of the rival submissions of the parties, I find that in the instant case, the appellants did not use credit availed inputs in the manufacture of final products in respect of which it enjoyed exemption. It would appear that the requirement of reversing the entire balance relatable to all the inputs at various stages in stock in the factory of the assessee, applies only to a unit which avails full exemption in respect of all the final products it manufactured at any stage in a financial year. It is seen from the records that the assessee kept intact the inputs and the credit relatable to it during the period it availed the exemption under the Notification No. 6/02. It also did not avail input credit of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of paper and paperboards cleared under exemption. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. The same is vacated and this appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 454 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Waste and scrap procured ... ... ... ... ..... d waste sent from M/s. Jain Metal Components (P) Ltd. would be a lesser quantity than what was sent initially. 5. emsp The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,83,322/- in respect of rods manufactured out of waste and scrap which arose at the hands of M/s. Jain Metal Components (P) Ltd. while manufacturing coponents out of rods supplied by the said job worker. 6. emsp In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case taking note of the fact that the entire movements are initiated in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE, Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings in respect of demand from M/s. Alcobex Metals Ltd. The view that scrap and waste arising at the end of M/s. Jain Metal Components (P) Ltd. has to be treated only as final product and not as input for moving under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. is not correct. 7. emsp Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal by the Department. It is accordingly rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... merit in the contention of the appellant. The duty demand is upheld in respect of the penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. I find that in the adjudication order as well as in the Commissioner (Appeals rsquo ) order, it is not specified which particular clause or Rule 173Q of Rules have been allegedly contravened by the appellant. On this ground, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods (supra) set aside the penalty. In view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q is set aside. The appellant cleared the goods without payment of duty, therefore, I find no ground to interfere the amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. In respect of the penalty imposed on Shri Mohan Singh, Director, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- otherwise the impugned order is upheld. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 19-6-2006)
........
|
