|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1441 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that there is no work order, it is only a letter dated 25-3-2006 under which the applicants undertook the activity. 7. We find that before the Commissioner (Appeals), the applicants had not produced any work order to show the scope of work. The only contention of the applicants is that the applicants had taken the process of drilling and blasting. Dredging service includes removal of material. As the drilling and blasting essentially result in removal of material, therefore, we find that, prima facie, the applicants had not made out a case for total waiver of the dues. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicants to deposit an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs only) within eighty weeks. On deposit of the above amount, the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of dues is waived and recovery thereof is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 8. Compliance is to be reported on 6-12-2013. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Cargo Handling Service - appellant contest that activity of packing, unpacking, loading and handling goods within the factory premises will not be covered by the entry for ‘Cargo Handling Services’ because at that stage where such activity was being done they were just handling goods and not “cargo” - extended period of limitation - penalty - difference of opinion - majority order.
Held that: - reference is returned to the original Bench directing the Registry to place the same before that Bench for majority order.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1439 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 4. In the above view of the matter, prima facie we find that no escape from the assessed liability nor any infirmity in the adjudication order. Whether penalty ought to have been levied, is another matter. 5. In the above circumstances, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay all further proceedings, on condition that the petitioner remits ₹ 1,71,46,656/-, plus the corresponding interest thereon (excluding the component of penalties assessed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994) within 8 weeks from today. Compliance shall be reported by 7-1-2014. In default of either deposit or reporting compliance within the time stipulated, the order of waiver shall stand rescinded and the appeal shall stand dismissed for failure of pre-deposit. 6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is present in the court has noted the contents of the Order, and this is adequate intimation to the petitioner of its obligations. This application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1438 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... r as the adjudicating authority’s decisions are concerned the last item in the meaning of relevant date, clause (f) of explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 11B can apply. According to this, in any other case, the relevant date of one year has to be calculated from the date of payment of duty. In view of the fact that the specific time limit have been made applicable to the decisions of the appellate authority/Tribunal or Court, it would be proper to have a view that in all other cases, this clause would apply and therefore the appellant should have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of payment made by them during the course of proceedings initially against them. Since the claim has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B and the Tribunal being a creation of statute cannot go beyond the statutory provisions, the impugned order has to be upheld. Accordingly, appeal is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1437 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ef as regards the availability of exemption to the services rendered. In this case, show cause notice has been issued on 2-4-2012 and therefore, the period prior to 1st October, 2010 would be beyond the normal period of limitation and the demand is only up to June, 2010. In these circumstances, on the ground of limitation alone, we consider that the appellant has made out prima facie case. In any case, we also find that no exporter would bring the cargo to the Airport with an intention to store it there or receive other services there. The exemption of export cargo is only for export and any service which is provided would be incidental and ancillary and in relation to export cargo and nature of service rendered by appellant, in our opinion, prima facie is covered by cargo handling service. In the result, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the dues and stay against recovery during pendency of the appeal. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... service. The adjudicating authority, without noticing that show cause notice did not assert that the assessee had provided “information technology software” service, accepted the alternative contention of the assessee and confirmed service tax under a category not alleged in the show cause notice. This conclusion of the assessing authority is prima facie unsustainable for denial of fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellant/petitioner. It also requires to be noticed that the tax component of ₹ 1,13,996/- confirmed for the period 2010-11 in respect of “information technology software” service was already remitted by the petitioner. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances we prima facie see a strong and eminently arguable case in favour of the appellant and grant waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay all further proceedings for recovery of the adjudicated liability, pending disposal of the appeal. Stay application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1435 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to OIDARS and Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) by any Indian news agency from the whole of the levy of service tax, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the notification. The conditions are complied with by the petitioner. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim/contention by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not the provider of OIDARS but was the recipient. Section 66A(1)(b) declares and treats a recipient (for the purposes provided in the provisions) to be the provider of taxable services. 3. Prima facie therefore, the petitioner though the recipient must be considered as the provider of the taxable OIDARS and consequently be entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 13/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010. 4. On the aforesaid premise, we grant waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order, pending disposal of the appeal. This application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1434 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e lower authorities on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner v. ABB Ltd. - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.) is on a different footing of the legal provisions. W.e.f. 1-4-2008, outward transportation up to the ‘place of removal’ was included in the definition of ‘input services’ and only transportation undertaken beyond the ‘place of removal’ was excluded from the scope of ‘input services’. In the present case, as observed earlier, ‘place of removal’ is the buyer’s premises as per the purchase orders. If that be so, the transportation undertaken by the appellant up to the ‘place of removal’ is an eligible input service. Thus, the appellant has made out a strong case in its favour for grant of stay. 6. Accordingly, I grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1433 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... 65/- towards consulting engineer service received by the appellants. The amount was paid by the appellants after 18-4-2006. It was submitted that appellants had received the service and payment was made after receiving the service and services were received prior to 18-4-2006 and therefore, appellant is not liable to pay service tax at all since the taxable even occurred in the year 2005-06. The Commissioner has recorded finding that the amount was received in 2006-07 but there is no specific finding that the services were also received in 2006-07. In the absence of such finding and also in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel that service was received only prior to 2005-06, we find that appellant has made out prima facie case for waiver. 6. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of the dues is waived and stay against recovery granted during the pendency of appeal. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in the Court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1431 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The ld. Consultant, Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, appearing for the Appellant, did not dispute about the above facts. 4. Since the issue relates to export of goods and the order has been passed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), we agree with the contention of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the proper Forum is to pursue this matter before the revisionary Authority of Government of India against the said order and not before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Appellant is at liberty to pursue this matter before the proper Forum. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Stay Petition is also disposed off. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1430 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the workmen will be entitled to 25 backwages over and above the last drawn wages that they have received under Section 17B of I.D. Act. The backwages shall be calculated until the date as mentioned in clause (iii) above. (v) All the workmen will be entitled to the same retirement benefits, if any (depending on their eligibility), as given to the other group of 10 workmen viz. Pandurang Vishnu Sandage and others. (vi) All the aforesaid payments shall be made directly to the workmen concerned or their heirs, as the case maybe, within three months from the date of this judgment. (vii) There shall not be any order of reinstatement. (viii) The appellants will, thereafter, file a compliance report in the Labour Court at Sangli, with a copy thereof to the Registry of this Court. (ix) Order accordingly. (x) Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court, Sangli. 30. Both the appeals and all the I.As. moved therein stand disposed off as above, with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1429 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking to withdraw the Lookout Circular (L.O.C) issued - Offence punishable u/s 304(ii) IPC - 'EVP Theme Park' - mishap occurred while having ride in the Octopus - HELD THAT:- L.O.C. containing full particulars of the person is being sent throughout the world. Even to Interpol also. It is being sent using software techniques. Its effect is that the person against whom L.O.C. has been issued, if lands in an Indian Airport, he will be apprehended. There will be difficulty for him to land in a foreign country also as he will not allowed to enter the country from the Airport.
Petitioners are facing criminal prosecutions. They are granted bail/anticipatory bail. They are holders of valid Indian Passports. They have strong roots in the society. They are business people. They need to travel abroad often. So far there is no valid restriction on their movement by any Court order or Ministry of Home Affairs or External Affairs. They are not stated be involved in any heinous crimes. They are not terrorists. Nor anti-social elements. There is no allegation that they have absconded. Thus, they cannot be brought under any one of the categories with respect to whom L.O.C. orders are being issued .
In the facts and circumstances of this case and due to the subsequent developments, so far as the petitioners are concerned, L.O.C. orders becomes irrelevant.
Thus, the 1st respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Chennai is directed to withdraw the Look Out Circular order issued as against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1428 - SUPREME COURT
Private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C - Investigation u/s 156(3) CrPC by the Deputy Superintendent of Police - Non-production of a valid sanction order u/ 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- the law on the issue of sanction can be summarized to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab-initio.
Decision in the case of Subramanium Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another[2012 (2) TMI 140 SUPREME COURT] and STATE OF U.P. VERSUS PARAS NATH SINGH [2009 (5) TMI 973 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
In the result the principles laid down by the Court in the above referred judgments apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, no error was found in the order passed by the High Court. The appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1427 - SUPREME COURT
Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint u/s-482 CrPC - Criminal court's power for compounding the offences u/s 320 of CrPC is distinct & different - No power of quashing heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity - Commitment of offences w.r.t. Banking activities & offences under Sections 420/471 IPC - Harmful effect on the public - Threatens well being of society - HELD THAT:- when the specific allegation is made against the respondent-accused that he obtained the loan on the basis of forged document with the help of Bank officials, yet on investigation it was found that the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property of the bank (Section 420 IPC) and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 IPC), charge sheet was required to be submitted under Sections 420/471 IPC against the accused persons.
Offences w.r.t. Banking activities - HELD THAT:- The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank with an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a compromise between the offender and the victim. The offences when committed in relation with Banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Further it may be claimed that the bank is the victim in such cases but, actually, the society including Bank's customers are infirm. There was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice.
Decision in the case of GIAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR [2010 (11) TMI 1058 - SUPREME COURT] was followed.
In the instant case, the High Court did not consider the above factors while passing the impugned order. Hence, Supreme Court was of opinion that the High Court has erred in addressing the issue in right perspective.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1426 - ITAT PUNE
Denial of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of project Tulips - Held that:- Legal position it is settled that clause (d) will not apply if project is approved prior to 01-04-2005. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Tulip project was approved and commenced on 19- 03-2003. In view of the above, the objection of Assessing Officer in respect of construction of commercial user could not be sustained. It is also pertinent to mention that Assessing Officer himself has accepted in assessment order that commercial area of 8801 sq. ft. is within permissible limits of PCMC for housing project constructed in the residential zone. Therefore, commercial user constructed Tulip project was within the norms of PCMC for housing project. Accordingly, issue raised in ground No.1 & 2 has rightly been decided in favour of assessee because clause (d) inserted in the provisions of section 80IB(10) restricting commercial area has prospective effect from 01-04- 2005. We uphold the same.
Violation of clause (c) on the basis of report given by Ward Inspector - Held that:- Material as available on record reveals that three flats were separately sold to Mr. Oomer K. George through separate deeds. Three electricity connections were provided for respective flats and even municipal authorities recognizes three flats by assessing them separately for the purpose of municipal taxes. There is apparently nothing on record that assessee has played a role in selling the flats in combined manner even purchaser Mr. Oomer K. George during appeal also confirmed the fact that three flats were joined by him and assessee has not played any role in the same. In view of the above objection on violation of clause (c) and in view of the merger of three flats by one Mr. Oomer K. George was not accepted by CIT(A) , accordingly disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on this ground was rejected and claim of assessee was allowed. This reason of factual legal finding needs no interference from our side. We upheld the same.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1425 - ITAT MUMBAI
Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- In the assessment proceedings resumed on 10.12.2010, 13.12.2010 and 28.12.2010, the AR has been asked to explain the issues raised in the CIT’s order u/s 263 of the Act. Once again, no specific information has been called for during these dates and thereby the AO proceeded to complete the assessment on 31.12.2010 i.e., within a span of 20 days. This, in our view, resultantly implies that the assessee has not been provided with proper opportunity in the light of rule 46A (1) (d) which provides one of the exceptional circumstances under which the Ld.CIT(A) can admit the additional evidence in the first appellate proceedings. It is also relevant to note that before admitting the additional evidence, the Ld.CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO on the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and accordingly considered the submission of the AO dated 27.01.2012 by giving proper opportunity to the AO to examine the said additional evidence.
We are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has not contravened Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules while admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count and the same is upheld.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1424 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Order passed u/s. 263 annulled - Held that:- As the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 29.3.2011 was quashed by the Tribunal for A.Y. 2006-07, there is no surviving order so as to pass consequential order in terms of section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the CIT(A) is justified in annulling the assessment order dated 30.6.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. The ground taken by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1423 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Set off the loss on account of forfeiture of licence fee against income - Held that:- Since the assessee was allotted the licence by the Excise Department, which was later on transfer to one Shankar Lal Patidar but the said licence was cancelled by the Excise Department and the amount of licence fees deposited by the petitioner was forfeited by the Excise Department, the assessee is entitled to set off on account of such forfeiture.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1422 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act before the respondent No. 3 nor during the hearing while seeking to revise its liability. 8. Under the circumstances, it appears to us that it is a fit case for reconsideration of the whole issue. Therefore, without going into the question whether the respondent No. 3 is precluded to reopen the proceedings, we deem it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the whole issue, particularly in view of the contents of the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26-11-2012 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 28-12-2012 and make an enquiry into the objections raised therein and pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. No costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1421 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We find that the case squarely falls within the parameters of "ignorance", even by the CA, who conducted audit and tax audit. In such a case, the bonafide of the assessee gets explained automatically. In these circumstances, the penalty, in our opinion cannot be levied on the assessee. In so far as the bonafides of the CA firm is concerned, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the fact that certain "silly mistakes" can never be ruled out. We, therefore, cannot hold even the CA to be guilty of committing a mistake, because, the relevant expression was inserted in the relevant assessment year only which went unnoticed by everyone.
............
|
