|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194I - deduct tax at source from the payment of lease premium made to MMRDA - Held that:- The lease premium paid by the assessee to MMRDA not being in the nature of rent as contemplated in section 194-I of the Act, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment and hence could not be treated as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 922 - ITAT PUNE
Amortization of premium on investments - Held that:- CBDT Circular No.17 dated 26-11-2008 states that the investments classified under HTM category need not be marked to market and could be carried at acquisition cost unless it was more than the face value, in such case premium should be amortized over the period remaining to the maturity.
-
2013 (8) TMI 921 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - Brass Sheets - description of goods mentioned wrongly in the invoices.
Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only 'brass sheet' and the same stands reflected by the Appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them - CENVAT Credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 920 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y reduce the penalty imposed by the respondent No.2 from ₹ 3 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/instead of setting aside the entire penalty imposed on the Appellants, as they did not have any knowledge as regards the loading of the Containers on the vessel. (ii) Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case and in law CESTAT was correct in upholding penalty on the appellant CHA under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 when the facts of the case do not attract any penalty on the CHA under section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962? 3. Hearing is expedited.
-
2013 (8) TMI 919 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court or it may be restored back to the file of the ld. CWT(A) for fresh decision in the light of this retrospective amendment. 4. We have considered rival submissions. We find that a recent amendment had been made in Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1993, and therefore, such amendment is applicable in the present year under consideration. The order of the ld. CWT(A) is dated 19.10.2012 which is prior to this retrospective amendment. Hence, we feel it proper that the learned CWT(A) should decide this issue afresh in the light of the retrospective amendment, and hence, we set aside the order of the ld. CWT(A), and restore this matter back to his file for fresh decision in light of the retrospective amendment, as per which clause (ea) of section 2 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was amended. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 918 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of complainant and counsel for complainant. The Trial Court was not in a position to secure accused Nos. 3 and 8. Therefore, case against accused Nos. 3 and 8 was separated. In the circumstances, the Trial Court should have called upon the complainant to adduce evidence. Instead, the Trial Court closed the case and cancelled bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than upon a police report under Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petition is accepted 5. The Trial Court is directed to restore the complaint against the respondents. The Trial Court shall proceed with the case in respect of available accused. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.6 herein namely, S.D.Kini is dead. If that is so, learned counsel for accused can report the same to the Trial Court for appropriate orders.
-
2013 (8) TMI 917 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... et the invoices in the name of individual firms proportionate to the services rendered to them which would have been in accordance with law and probably would not have created any problem. The problem has arisen because the appellant chose to take the credit in their books of account for the entire amount of service tax paid by them whereas the service received was only proportionate to their occupancy or utilization of service. Basically the issue is one of procedure to be followed and there is no dispute or there is no finding that all the 4 firms were not eligible for the credit. Since all the 4 firms are eligible for credit taken and the total amount taken has not been found to be inadmissible credit except for the proportionate part, at this stage we consider that the appellant has made out a case for waiver. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery granted during the pendency of appeal. (Order Pronounced and Dictated in Open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 916 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... yndicate Bank and in fact reference to show-cause notice of the Joint Commissioner is also given in one of the challans. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the payment of service tax as well as its connection with the issue involved. In such a situation, either the authority who received the claim could have sanctioned the refund or passed on to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. In this case, the refund claim has been filed before the authority in Bangalore and it is settled law that if the matter is pursued before the wrong authority, the period spent in pursuing the issues before the wrong authority has to be excluded for limitation. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to approach the authority concerned in Mangalore Commissionerate who shall take the date of filing of refund claim in Bangalore as the date of filing the claim and proceed to decide the matter on that basis. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... aid order. Having gone through said order, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed at this juncture. Hence, we allow the application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. After perusing our Final Order dt.03.05.2013, we find that it is in respect of assessee’s own case and the issue involved in that case and in the case in hand is same. Accordingly, following the said order dt.13.05.2013, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Appeal and stay allowed. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 914 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
If the goods were exported and had the assessee deposited the amount, it would have been refunded under the 2007-Notification; In view of the same, prima facie, it cannot be said there was intention to evade tax and the assessee has a strong case on merit.
-
2013 (8) TMI 913 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent is a category of modified starch of CE TH 3505 as per the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri Kuntal Parikh (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the classification of MSP manufactured by the Respondent was the subject matter of appeal No. E/390/2007 & E/391/2007 wherein this very Bench has pronounced the order that MSP is classifiable under CE TH 1103.00 and accordingly rejected that appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the case records. It is seen from the records that classification of the product MSP manufactured by the appellant has been decided under CETH 1103.00 in Appeal No. No. E/390/2007 & E/391/2007 filed by the Revenue by passing order No. A/10968-10969/WZB/ Ahd./2013, dated 7-8-2013 2013 (298) E.L.T. 439 (T) in the case of the same assessee. In view of the view already taken by the Bench, this appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction?
-
2013 (8) TMI 911 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the estimation of first sales turnover holding that the petitioner has not maintained stock account whereas party has maintained separate stock accounts for each time.
the inter-mingling of taxable and non-taxable goods not allowed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 910 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Imposition of penalties u/s 76 and 78 - invocation of section 80 - the appellant's case is that major amount of tax with interest was paid before the issuance of SCN - Held that: - The present appellant is a lady who took over the working of the appellant only from 2005-2006 onwards and the entire disputed Service Tax along with interest, was paid - It is not the case of the Revenue that appellant has recovered the Service Tax from the service recipients and retained the same. No specific fact has been disclosed in SCN as to how there was wilful misstatement/suppression on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade Service Tax - this is a fit case for invocation of section 80 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 909 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ce provider to get service. But the service was really been provided by the supplier of the goods engaging a transporter. The primary activity not been engagement of a transporter but use of the service of transporter by the consigner in the course of trade, there shall be no levy of service tax in the fitness of the circumstances and factual situation of the case. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 908 - CESTAT DELHI
Condonation of delay - Held that: - satisfactory cause is shown for the delay namely availment of a remedy invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, we are inclined to condone the delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal - delay condoned - application allowed.
Waiver of pre-deposit - grant of stay of all proceedings - Held that: - N/N. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 issued in exercise of powers conferred on Central Government under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 has exempted from the levy of service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, during the period upto 26.02.2010 - The period in issue in the present case is 01.06.2007 to 07.07.2009 and undisputedly the petitioner has provided services relating to transmission of electricity to various Electricity Distribution Companies, including the Power Grid Corporation of India and West Bengal State Electricity Board etc. - pre-deposit waived and stay granted from all proceedings - application allowed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 907 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rtain input services received at branch offices. The case of the Revenue is that as the head office is not registered with the Revenue. The respondents has not obtained centralized registration, therefore, the credit is wrongly availed. The case of the Revenue is that as respondents has wrongly availed credit, therefore liable for penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. 4. We find that as per the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, any person liable to pay Service Tax, who fails to pay such tax, shall pay, a penalty which shall not be less than ₹ 100/- for every day during which such failure continues. We find that it is not a case for non-payment of Service Tax. Further, we find that in case the head office has wrongly availed credit in respect of the service relating to the branch offices, the branch offices are legally entitled to take credit. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 906 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r sub-section (1) of the Section 35C of the Act. No such power is vouchsafed in respect of interlocutory orders. It is axiomatic that the power of review of judicial or quasi judicial orders, as distinct from purely administrative orders, is predicated upon a specific legislative grant of authority, to review. In the absence of any legislative conferment of power of review in respect of interlocutory orders, no application for review of an interlocutory order including an order directing pre-deposit is available to this Tribunal. Of course, the Tribunal has always an inherent power to correct any typographical or a purely mathematical error. 5. The memorandum of written submission refers to various judgments to contend that the petitioner/appellant is not liable to the levy or collection of Service Tax under cargo handling service. 6. Since we discern no power, authority or jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order dated 12-12-2013, we dismiss the application.
-
2013 (8) TMI 905 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ture of exempted goods. There is no stipulation that the services should be availed exclusively in the manufacture of dutiable goods. Therefore, there is merit in the appellant’s contention in this regard. In the case of HEG Ltd. (supra), a similar issue arose in respect of capital goods which were used in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods and the Hon’ble High Court held that capital goods used partly in the manufacture of dutiable goods and partly in the manufacture of exempted goods, capital goods credit cannot be denied. The same logic would apply in respect of interpretation of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 also. Thus, the appellant is rightly entitled to take credit on ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Services’ as provided under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The stay petition is also disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 904 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ent of STC code number and thereafter the appellant could file the refund claim in prescribed Form A-1. In this case, the appellant, admittedly, has neither filed the declaration in Form A-2 nor have they been allotted STC code number, which, in my view, is mandatory before filing the refund claim by a merchant-manufacturer. In view of this, I hold that the refund claim has been correctly rejected. Though at the stage of original adjudication proceedings, the show cause notice was not issued and hearing was not granted, in my view, since the appellant was not eligible to apply for refund claim without first filing the declaration in Form A-2, non-issue of show cause notice and non-grant of personal hearing does not vitiate the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. In any case, the appellant had been heard by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated in the open Court)
............
|
