|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 655 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the occasions less than a commercial quantity. 9. Hence, this appeal succeeds partly. The order of conviction and sentence passed against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act for illegal possession of commercial quantity of poppy straw powder and fragments is hereby quashed and set aside, whereas the order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act for the offence of illegal sale transaction of 30 kgs. poppy straw powder with abetment with accused no.2 as well as the order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act for the offence of illegal sale of 30 kgs. poppy straw powder to accused no.2 - Karim Patel who was not possessing valid license and permit is hereby confirmed. 10. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Criminal Application No.1355 of 2006 for bail does not survive and the same shall stand disposed as such.
-
2007 (9) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... le 57V of the Central Excise Rules, insofar as they pertain to availment, utilization/disallowance of Modvat credit have been substituted with effect from 1.4.2000 vide notification 27/2000-CE (NT) dated 31.3.2000 without any saving clause, no action seeking to disallow such credit can now be initiated. This view has been upheld by this Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Structural and Engineering Ltd vs CCE & following the same entire proceedings are to be set aside. 7. It can be noted from the above reproduced portion, that the Tribunal had on merits as well as on limitation set aside the impugned order. The impugned order having been set aside on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits, does not survive even in the appeal of the revenue. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondent herein in their own appeal against the very same order-in-original, respectfully following the same and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 660 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned order whereby demand is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of welding electrodes. 5. In respect of packing and jointing material, as the appellants are manufacturing sugar and the packing and jointing material is used to prevent leakage of steam, liquid and gases in the plant. The Tribunal in the case of Modi Sugar Mills Vs. CCE reported in 2002 (150) ELT 241 allowed the credit in respect of jointing and packing material. As the issue in respect of welding electrodes now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
-
2007 (9) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect. In the present case no question was framed by the High Court as to whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, is a finding based on no evidence or is perverse. Hence the findings of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, could not have been interfered with by the High Court. o p /o p 12. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High Court has practically acted as a First Appellate Court and has re-appreciated the findings of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge which it could not validly do in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. o p /o p 13. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.4.1999. o p /o p 13. The Appeal is allowed. There is no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2007 (9) TMI 658 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... is concerned...." (p. 95) Counsel has also referred to the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Noble Institute (Education) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 5 STT 80. In this case, the question considered by the High Court was whether service tax was leviable from the said educational institution under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to 1-7-2003. Again, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the demand of tax on the appellant is for a period from 1-7-2003. It was on the said date that the levy of service tax on "commercial training or coaching centre" was introduced. 2. The appellants have not made out prima facie case against the above demand of tax. Hence they are directed to pre-deposit the service tax amount, which shall be deposited within 8 weeks from today. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties. Report compliance on 2-11-2007.
-
2007 (9) TMI 657 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ready been paid as stated, there shall not be insistence on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
-
2007 (9) TMI 656 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act. As already mentioned, on a reading of the assessment order in the present case it cannot be discerned that the Assessing Officer was satisfied, even prima facie, that a case for initiating penalty proceedings was made out. Nowhere has the Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no error in the opinion expressed by the Tribunal and the decision in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.’s case (supra ) was fully applicable to the facts of the case. 11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issue pending before the larger Bench. We have proceeded on the basis that even if that questions were to be answered in the affirmative, the penalty proceedings against the assessee in the instant case cannot be sustained in law. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 655 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uestion are the plantation hands. This being the pure question of fact, this Court cannot review the said order of this Court, that too, after a lapse of 14 years, for coming to deferens conclusion The grounds urged in this review petition were already urged before this Court in W.P.10920/1983 and are considered. The memorandum of write petition produced at “Annexure-N” makes the same clear. As the petitioner has failed to prove that the declarants (contesting respondents) and the Tahsildar have played fraud on the Court and the Tribunal, the review petition fails and is able to the dismissed not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also no merits. No valid ground is forthcoming to review the order passed in W.P.No.10920/1983. However, it is open for the State or Tribunal to get the lands to the extent of 368.16 acres surrendered, as aforementioned, in accordance with law, The review petition fails, Accordingly, the same is dismissed with the said liberty.
-
2007 (9) TMI 654 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uidator has colluded with the appellant. No material is placed before the Court substantiate such a serious allegation. This bold assertion of Mr. Chatterjee has to be stated only to be rejected. Allegations such as collusion and mala fide can be accepted by the Court only on the clear and cogent proof thereof. There is no such proof in this case. 21. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The Judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. A direction is issued to the Official Liquidator in terms of prayer Clause "C" of the stay petition, which reads as follows (c) The Official Liquidator be directed to disclaim and make over possession to the petitioner of the said premises situated on the second floor of premises No. 31, B.B.D. Bagh (South), Kolkata - 700001 more fully described in annexure "A" hereof. The appellant shall be at liberty to pursue its remedy in accordance with law for execution of the decree that remains unsatisfied. Tapen Sen, J. 22. I agree.
-
2007 (9) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had been filed by the appellant might have been the subject matter of consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court and not the main writ application itself. We, however, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and direct the Division Bench to hear the said Review Petition No.81/2006 in Writ Petition No.628/2005 afresh. We direct accordingly. We make it clear that the High Court, while considering the the said review application on merit, shall inter alia consider the stand of the Central Government vis-a-vis its policy to exempt the new entrepreneurs from payment of central excise duty. The parties shall be at liberty to file additional affidavits. It will also be open to the parties to produce additional documents before the High Court. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (9) TMI 652 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lation Profit in future. Initiate proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Issue necessary form. Loss of earlier years is not allowed to carried forward as per the findings in the order for assessment year 1996-97." 7. The above recording does not satisfy the requirement of section 271(1)(c) of the Act as explained by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.’s case (supra). Further even on a detailed perusal of the assessment order no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penally proceedings are required to be initiated against the assessee is discernible. 8. Learned counsel for the revenue contends that speculation loss has been set off against business income, and therefore there was valid reason for the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings. We do not agree. This does not indicate the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings should be initiated. 9. No substantial question of law arises. 10. Dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 651 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ted by the truck drivers. In our considered opinion, this is simply a matter of presentation of accounts and merely for not presenting in the accounts, the amount of the gross freight and then freight paid to truck operator/owner separately, the claim of TDS cannot be denied to the assessee and more so in a proceeding under s. 154 of the Act under which only an apparent mistake can be rectified. A matter in respect of which two opinions can reasonably be formed is certainly outside the jurisdiction of s. 154 of the Act. Considering the full facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the withdrawing of credit for TDS in present case was not such an apparent mistake which could have been rectified by the Revenue in a proceeding under s. 154 of the Act. Hence, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed under s. 154 of the Act and direct the AO to allow credit for TDS amount deducted from the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 650 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Plant & Machinery for the purpose of allowing depreciation, investment allowance and relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act?" 2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. 1994 210 ITR 8301, the question of law is required to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3. Under the circumstances, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (9) TMI 649 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y 90 per cent of the interest is to be excluded from the profits of the business as per Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if the interest is assessed under the head ‘Income from other sources’ ?" Filing of paper books is dispensed with and the appeal is heard finally. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment 2007 289 ITR 4751. On a perusal of the said decision, we are of the opinion that the above questions are covered by it. 4. The income earned by the assessee from FDRs is required to be assessed as income from other sources. The said income is therefore outside the purview of section 80HHC of the Act and 100 per cent of the interest is required to be excluded from the profits of the business in terms of Explanation (baa ) to section 80HHC of the Act. 5. The order passed by the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 648 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rent of ancestral nature. During the course of heating before us, the learned Departmental Representative argued that deduction us 54-B should not be given to an assessee not being an individual. He argued that the words "the assessee or a parent of his" suggested that the provision applied to individual only. We are unable to accept his argument. If the intention of the legislature were not to allow the provision of section 54-B to the cases other than the individuals, the same could have been explicitly stated in the provision itself. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54-B of the Act." 11. This case was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Sultan Singh (supra). For the reasons stated above and in view of the decision by the Tribunal, the assessee is to be held as eligible for deduction under section 54B, the Assessing Officer shall grant deduction as per law. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 647 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en exercised by the authorities and in the present case, in not doing so, it has resulted in injustice to the appellants. This submission may not be correct, especially when at no point of time earlier, the appellants had made such a prayer either before the Commissioner or before the Tribunal. It is only after the disposal of the case by the Tribunal the appellants had filed the application to review and re-open the case, raising the point of applicability or invoking of Section 125 of the Customs Act. In fact, as the records disclose, the Tribunal has, by a detailed order, considered the said question and rejected the prayer of the appellants. Since the two authorities namely, Commissioner of Customs and the Appellate Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge have considered these aspects which are basically findings of fact as to the applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act, we do not find that there is any merit in the appeals. 4. The appeals are rejected.
-
2007 (9) TMI 646 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d. That view was not accepted by the majority members constituting the Tribunal. In this view of the matter the law laid down in Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt. Ltd. does not reflect the correct statement of law. Even otherwise there are a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that the quantum of penalty is a matter of discretion depending upon the facts of each case. There can be no hard and fast rule that the penalty imposed cannot exceed 5 of the CIF value of the goods. 6. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and the conclusion made by the Tribunal in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which is objected to by the learned counsel for the Revenue, is declared to be not the correct law. On the merits of the case, since we have disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal, the matter should be reconsidered by the Tribunal on the quantum of penalty. 7. The parties will appear before the Tribunal on 9th October, 2007 for further directions.
-
2007 (9) TMI 645 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... by any unlawful means or not. If that is so, the statement, if any recorded under Section 108, has to meet the test of law. The entire issue going to the root of the matter certainly calls for proper examination, bringing home all charges against Shri Swadesh Chandra Paul and granting him an opportunity of defence. If both the Appellants are dealt in the manner desired by law granting them a fair opportunity of examination and cross-examination, there may not be any grievance in future about denial of justice. Therefore, the Authorities below are at liberty to come to a very rational conclusion following due process of law. 5. With the aforesaid finding and observation, it would be proper to remit back the matter to the learned Adjudicating Authority for re-determination of the issue granting fair opportunity to both the Appellants and for passing an appropriate Order. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. Dictated and pronounced in the open court.
-
2007 (9) TMI 644 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the proceedings which have become final before 1st April 2001 should not be reopened under Section 147 of the Act to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act. Further, the direction appended has not at all been taken note of in the circular. Dehors the proviso also on a reading of the circular, we are of the view that the circular would not in any way advance the case of the Revenue that wherever the assessment has not been completed and attained finality that can be reopened. If the contention is accepted that even for an assessment year which is pending before the hierarchy of authorities the assessing officer can invoke the provisions and reopen the assessment, which is not the intention of the legislature. Hence, we are not able to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as no question of law involves. The tax case appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 643 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssing Officer that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is discernible therefrom. 7. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has, in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, observed as follows "Assessed. Issue necessary forms. Charge interest under section 234B. Allow credit for pre-paid taxes as per copy of challan on file. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act has been initiated separately." 8. The above recording does not satisfy the requirement of section 271(1)(c) of the Act as explained by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.’s case (supra). Further even on a detailed perusal of the assessment order no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings are required to be initiated against the assessee is discernible. None has also been pointed out to us. 9. No substantial question of law arises. 10. Dismissed.
........
|
