Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 903 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... es were not included under the definition of Consulting Engineer. When we have taken such a view, considering the relevant assessment year in the present case we have to hold that the service rendered by the assessee-Company during relevant period cannot be brought under the category of Consulting Engineer. If the service rendered by the assessee cannot be considered as a Consulting Engineer, the question of calling upon the assessee to pay the Service Tax under the Finance Act, brought the assessee under the word Consulting Engineer does not arise at all. Therefore, the said point has to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 7. As the appellants are body corporate engaged in the manufacture of chemicals therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled for consequential relief if any according to law. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 902 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Stay petition - Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that: - we dismiss the appeal of M/s.Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. for non compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order No. No.55665-55669/2013 dated 10.1.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 901 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... y application No. 56440 of 2013 in Service Tax Appeal No. 56017 of 2013 and the facts of the present appeal are substantially similar, we grant of waiver of pre-deposit and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 03.01.2013, pending disposal of the appeal. This application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 900 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... such order relates to a rebate of duly of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India. 2. In the present case, the appeal relates to rebate of excise duty and the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and. therefore, such appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file appeal before the competent authority. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 899 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e appellant whereas the remaining duty amount can be adjusted from the Cenvat Credit Account. The order passed by this Court on 23.01.2013 does not preclude the appellant to seek adjustment of the amount of which benefit can be taken by the appellant. Therefore, we dispose of the present application with liberty to seek adjustment of any duty amount along with interest payable to it in accordance with law. CM disposed of.
-
2013 (8) TMI 898 - SC ORDER
Waiver of pre deposit - Non complaince with pre deposit order - whether in view of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit, the Tribunal could have dismissed the appeals itself.
-
2013 (8) TMI 897 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 41 - Held that:- There is no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) by holding that no cessation or remission of liability had occurred in appellant’s case.
-
2013 (8) TMI 896 - CESTAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... 2 with the jurisdictional Asstt./Dy. Commissioner for allotment of STC code number and only after allotment of STC number, the appellant could file the refund claim in prescribed Form A-I. In this case, the appellant, admittedly, neither filed Form A-2 nor has he been allotted STC code number, which, in my view, is mandatory before filing the refund claim. 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’s unit was not eligible to apply for refund claim without filing 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 have 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.
-
2013 (8) TMI 895 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of rent - income from house property - CIT(A) held that the ALV was to be determined on the basis of municipal value and not some estimated rent - Held that:- Assessing Officer has relied on the case of Shri Puneet R.Gupta,another assessee in the same charge, for assessment year 2005-2006 has been placed on record in which income from house property has been reflected at ₹ 84,000. Similar order for assessment year 2006-2007 in the case of Shri Puneet R.Gupta has also been placed on record disclosing income from house property at ₹ 84,000 which stood accepted as such. The case of the learned AR is that the assessee gave its property on rent in the year 1992 and it was at the same rate of rent that the property continued to be let out. When we consider the facts in totality, being the assessee earning rent of ₹ 7,500 per month since 1992 and Shri Puneet R.Gupta earning rent from similar property at ₹ 10,000 per month from calendar year 2004, there hardly remains any dispute about the correctness of the value declared by the assessee. Respectfully following the precedents given in the case of Estate of Late Sadajiwatlal Chandulal (Indl.) v. ITO. [2013 (5) TMI 223 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal has held that the municipal ratable value represents fair rental value and the same needs to be adopted for determining the annual letting value u/s 23 of the Act.
-
2013 (8) TMI 894 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Restoration of Appeal – Non-Compliance of Order – Recovery of drawback amount – Appellants seeking restoration of appeal, which were dismissed for non-compliance to Stay order – Held that:- stay order was passed directing appellants to deposit amount within 8 weeks and subject to that deposit, recovery of remaining amount of draw-back and interest was stayed during pendency of appeal – Appellants failed to report compliance to said order, therefore appeals were dismissed since right of appeal was conditional – Appellants did not come forward to ventilate their grievance for more than 6 (six) years – Therefore they shall not be granted any immunity to seek restoration – Restoration applications dismissed – Decided against Assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 893 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
when the revised assessment order was clearly barred by limitation it is a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-
2013 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... td., it is noticed that the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the CHA licence has not been sub-let. If that be so, we do not understand why in the appellant’s case alone, in similar situation, the same adjudicating authority has come to different conclusion altogether. For the same type of offence, different punishments cannot be accorded to different persons. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law as far as revocation of CHA licence is concerned. There are other technical violations by the CHA in the present case as is evident from the Inquiry Officers report. For those violations, forfeiture of security would be an adequate punishment. Accordingly, we uphold the forfeiture of security deposit by the appellant in the instant case. 6. To sum up, we set aside the revocation of CHA licence No. 11/359 issued to M/s N.H. Desai & co. and uphold the forfeiture of security deposit. Thus, the appeal is party allowed in the above terms.
-
2013 (8) TMI 891 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nsel who appeared requested for adjournment on behalf of the advocate on record. However, without granting the adjournment as prayed on behalf of the petitioner, the CESTAT proceeded further and passed the impugned order on merits. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved and moreover heavy amounts were directed to be remitted as pre-deposit, in our considered opinion it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that a fresh order shall be passed by the CESTAT after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. 6. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 890 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
"Whether tax under section 3C on voluntary contributions by members towards corpus of the society, collection of rent for certain functions which was below the taxable minimum of ₹ 5,000 and collection towards electricity charges at actual is right.
-
2013 (8) TMI 889 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... mukh Iron Ore Co., cited supra, also held that in cases involving Central PSUs, where the CoD had declined permission prior to 17-2-2011 when the Apex Court pronounced its judgment in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., either party cannot pursue the appeals and prior to 17-2-2011 such appellants are bound to obtain clearance from the CoD as per the judgment recalled by the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. judgment. 4.4 As regards the reliance placed by the appellant on the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., the facts of the case did not deal with the situation where the application to the CoD had already been rejected. It dealt with a situation where the CoD clearance was not produced. Therefore, the facts are different and distinguishable. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the application for restoration of appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 888 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... .T. 6 (S.C.). 7. On a perusal of the above judgment, we find that even in the above case before the Supreme Court which was rendered on 27th February, 2002, the assessee was given a notice by the Authorities while withdrawing the exemption and demanding excise duty. 8. Though various grounds are raised in the petition to assail the impugned order on merits, it is not necessary to refer to and/or examine the grounds. The petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned order is passed without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Hence without going into the merits of controversies between the parties, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 1st May, 2013. It would be open to the Authorities to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter take decision about availability of Notification No. 167/71-C.E., dated 11th September, 1971 to the petitioner in accordance with law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 887 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... recommended for testing of the sample by Food Testing Laboratory, Pune. The goods were sent to Pune Laboratory and on examination it was found that the goods were mixtures of vegetable oils in the combination of groundnut oil, soya bean oil, palmolein and soy bean oil and the goods were fried oil and unfit for human consumption. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jocil Ltd. (supra) has held that Chapter 15 of CTA, 1975 reads animal or vegetable fats, oils and waxes, etc., and for goods to fall into Chapter 15, there has to be element of ‘edible oil’. Both the examination reports mentioned that the impugned goods are not edible oil and they are not fit for human consumption. Therefore, they are not classifiable under Chapter 15. Hence the impugned order classifying the goods under Chapter 15 is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. 7. Appeals are allowed. (Dictated in court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 886 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... he product under Chapter 28 as Potassium Chloride while the Revenue is of the view that it would get classified under Chapter 31 as fertilizer. We find that when the goods were exported by the appellant, Schedule 2 of Export Policy at Sr. No. 132, talks about the export of ‘Potassium Chloride’ (Muriate of Potash) (All grade) as freely exportable commodities. 4. If that be so, prima facie, we are unable to accept the findings of the lower authorities that the items exported by the appellant would fall under restricted category and are liable for penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 5. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of amount of penalty imposed by adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated & pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 885 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Illegal imports done - Forged license - Held that:- Later circular dated 5-12-1994 was not the subject document available at the time of first adjudication but came into existence later when the case was remanded by the Tribunal - even if the forged/tampered advance licences were not relied upon documents in the show cause notices but the same became relied upon documents in the light of appellate proceedings and the remand directions of this Bench. The argument taken by the Revenue that tampered/forged advance licences were not relied upon documents in the show cause notices and are not available with the Department is not acceptable as providing of such advance licences to the appellants is a must to explain their conduct. Also, it is unacceptable that cross-examination of Customs officers is not necessary in this case. Accordingly, in the present proceedings, the adjudicating authority should not have gone beyond the remand directions in view of the settled law by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Milcent Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2005 (3) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 884 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Modification of the Stay Order - Demand of pre deposit - Bar of limitation - Held that:- On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) almost after one year and six months after the adjudication order was passed. The learned AR on behalf of the Revenue placed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur - [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed in the case of M/s. Gopinath & Sharma v. CESTAT - [2013 (4) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. It is well settled that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. - No reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided aganst assessee.
............
|