|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1299 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... stood by the appellant as per para 14 of the order-in-original dated 7--1-2011. On a subsequent appeal filed by the Revenue in these proceedings the amount was enhanced to ₹ 9,60,517/- by Commissioner (Appeals) which was also made good by the appellant along with interest payable thereon. From the above facts it is evident that confirmation of duty was not simple and adjudicating authority also erred in quantifying the Service Tax liability wrongly. There can be reasonable cause on the part of the appellant that he discharged his Service Tax liability to the best of his ability and also paid the differential amount as soon as determined by the audit officers/adjudicating authority/first appellate authority. In view of the above observations this is a fit case for non-imposition of penalties u/s. 76 & 78 as per the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Pronounced in the Court on 3-9-2013)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1161 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e-deposit determination culminating in an order granting waiver thereof only triggers the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine further steps in the appeal including consideration of an application for grant of stay or the final determination of the appeal. 7. It is seen from the order dated 30-10-2012 that no stay, of operation of the adjudication order or of realization of the adjudicated liability was granted. Since an order granting waiver of pre-deposit would operate indefinitely, we seek no reason to grant extension of the said order. That portion of the order dated 30-10-2012 which records that the waiver of pre-deposit would operate during pendency of the appeal or for a period of six months whichever is earlier, must therefore be construed as an order of waiver of pre-deposit on the stipulated conditions being fulfilled on condition but without any limit as to time of its operation. 8. With this clarification, the miscellaneous application is rejected.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1160 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ppellants are engaged in the activity of crushing of iron ore lumps. When the iron ores is crushed there are activities of segregating/crushing in respect of various sizes of ore. Accordingly, the segregating/screening activity becomes essential activity for crushing of the iron ore. Therefore credit of duty paid on the screening cannot be denied to the appellants on the ground that the said screening has not been used for providing the output service. I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) himself has allowed the credit in respect of the vibrating steel spring screen vide his order-in-appeal number cited above in respect of the present appellant and also in respect of M/s. Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd. I therefore hold that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) not allowing the Cenvat credit in respect of the vibrating steel spring screen is not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the same and allow the appeals filed by the appellants. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1159 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of transportation of goods. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 161 (Tri.-Del.) 2006 (3) S.T.R. 230 (Tribunal). 5. Revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the finding where the Commissioner (Appeals) followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 6. We find that in the show cause notice demand is under the service of clearing and forwarding agent, when the activities undertaken by the respondents in respect of lifting of sugar from factory carrying the same to Baramati railway station unloading from truck and loading into wagons does not fall under the service of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. 7. Cross-objections are also disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1158 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... products. Prima facie, it would be covered by IPR Service. We have noticed that from Sept.’04 to June’05, the applicant paid tax under the category “IPR Service” and availed exemption notification benefit and no dispute was raised. It is seen that the applicant changed the classification during the period July’05 to Sept.’07 and in Oct.’07 onwards again followed earlier classification and dispute arose in 2009. It is noted that the applicant paid R&D Cess for import of technology, which was adjusted against payment of tax under IPR Service. 11. Considering the overall facts and submissions of both sides, we find that the applicant made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of tax along with interest and penalty. So we waive pre-deposit of tax along with interest and penalty till disposal of the appeal and recovery stayed thereof. Stay application is allowed. (Pronounced in open Court on 4-9-2013)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1157 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... from outside India and received in India is not to be treated as output service. As per Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, credit can be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service. As per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 the taxable service received from the foreign service provider is not to be treated as output service. Therefore, the assessee cannot utilize the credit for payment of service tax in respect of the liability being recipient of taxable service from the foreign service provider. In view of these circumstances the applicant has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants directed to pre-deposit ₹ 5,00,000/- within eight weeks and report compliance on 6-11-2013. On compliance, the pre-deposit of the balance of service tax, interest and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1156 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... leased separately. What is payable to the contractor is also specified and what is payable to the appellant is also specified at each stage. It is also quite clear that the appellant gets the money as the deposit which is required to be paid to the contractor. Further it is also quite clear from the agreement that ultimately when the contract is executed, the property passed to the principal and the appellant does not get any benefit of either of the services or goods both of which will go to the principal only. Prima facie, we find that appellant has made out a case on merits as far as the claim that the appellant is a pure agent is concerned. Therefore, at this stage, in our opinion, this would be sufficient to take a view that there is no requirement of pre-deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal in this case. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of the dues during the pendency of appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1155 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... tra Valley Construction and Suppliers v. ONGC reported in 2012 (53) VST 401 (Guwahati), to contend that the transaction of hiring out of cranes by the petitioner amounts to transfer of goods for use, a transaction that is subject to levy of sales tax under the provisions of Sales Tax Laws of the respective States. Therefore, the transfer of the right to use goods would fall outside the domain of a taxable service within the authority of the Parliament and under the provisions of the Act. 6. In the light of the judgments of the Karnataka and Gauhati High Courts referred to, the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Adjudication Order, pending disposal of the appeal. The appeal may be listed for hearing in the usual course. Stay Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1154 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... truction corporation within the meaning of the said expression, under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. 9. The conflict assumed in the order of reference dated 31-5-2013 is therefore misconceived and there is no warrant for this Bench, to resolve a non-existent conflict. 10. Learned Counsel, for the appellant contends that the decision in Shreeji Construction that MMRDA is not a road construction corporation is erroneous and the appellant should be preserved the liberty to raise that contention, among others arising the appeal, before the appropriate Bench adjudicating the appeal on merits. It is always open to a party to a lis to raise all contentions legal or factual. As and when raised, the contentions would be adjudicated in accordance with law. 11. For the reasons recorded, we decline to answer the reference, which stands rejected and the appeal stands remitted to the appropriate Bench having the roster, in the West Zonal Bench, Mumbai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1153 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal. 7. Keeping in view of our decision rendered above on the preliminary issue raised in ground No. 1 upholding the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act treating the same as bad in law, the issue raised in ground No. 2 Revenue’s appeal challenging the deletion of by the ld. CIT(A) of the addition made by the A.O. by way of disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition has become infructuous although the same as noted by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1996-97 holding that the land development right is a capital asset. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary or expedient to adjudicate upon the same on merit. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1152 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2,01,357.00 along with interest at the rate of 24 per annum had been raised. The duty demanded along with interest was required to be paid within 3 days on receipt of the letter. Thus, it is preposterous to suggest that it was not a notice of demand under any indirect tax and enactment. It was clearly a notice of demand under the Customs Act. 3. The cut-off date was 31-3-1998 as notice had been issued on 31-3-1998. It was clearly covered under KVSS Scheme as apparent from the provisions contained in Section 95(ii)(b) of the KVSS Scheme, 1998. 4. Thus, we find no illegality in the decision rendered by the single Judge holding that KVSS Scheme, 1998 was to be applicable in the instant case. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, as the respondent has not entered appearance, there will be no order as to costs. 5. Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1151 - SUPREME COURT
Grave irregularities in the grant of licences - Misuse of official position for grant of Unified Access Licenses - Blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences - huge loss to the public exchequer running into crores - No action taken by TRAI and DoT - licensees sold off stake/equities - Who failed to fulfill roll-out obligations - Non-compliance with other conditions of licence - Conducted investigation for grant of huge loans by the public sector and other banks to some companies - Public Interest - Constitutional power of superior court to give direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time - Speedy trial under Article 21 - HELD THAT:-
Monitoring of criminal investigation is the function of investigating agency and not that of the Court - HELD THAT:-
Crores and crores of tax payers’ money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, Court will face with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of law.
More and more demands are now coming before the Courts for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings.
Monitoring the trial proceedings - HELD THAT:- No Court, other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated 11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court’s system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system’s procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business. already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases.
This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings
The decision on the case of A.R. ANTULAY VERSUS. R.S. NAIK & ORS. [1988 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Court found no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court.
In the result, Writ Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed
-
2013 (9) TMI 1150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s. 10A - whether to be allowed first before setting off unabsorbed loss and depreciation of non-eligible business unit of the assessee ? - Held that:- The deduction under section 10A, in our view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses.
What the Revenue in essence seeks to attain is to telescope the provisions of Chapter VI-A in the context of the deduction which is allowable under section 10A, which would not be permissible unless a specific statutory provision to that effect were to be made. In the absence thereof, such an approach cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal would have to be affirmed since it is plain and evident that the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance See Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
-
2013 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... erest and such mandate having been given effect by order No. 9/2011 of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4/5/2011, Revenue’s appeal does not survive. Revenue agrees with this proposition. Accordingly Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1148 - SC ORDER
Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- HC order confirmed [2012 (3) TMI 244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] A.O. has not acted within his jurisdiction in purporting to reopen the assessment. Also A.O. was not entitled, when he disposed of the objections to travel beyond the ambit of the reasons which were disclosed to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1147 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... praising Group) to The Director, The Smit Singapore PTE Ltd,.23, Gul Road, Singapore629356 stating as under “Sub Vessel Smit Boreno intended import into India procedurereg. With reference to the above subject, it is inform you that the intended import of Vessel “Smit Borneo” will be treated as fresh imports and the assessment will be done after the B/E is filed.” 7) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though as indicated in the communication the intended import of the vessel will be treated as fresh import and the assessment will be done after the bill of entry is filed, the vessel may still be confiscated in view of the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the vessel Smit Borneo is liable for confiscation. 8) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we grant the interim stay against the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal in so far as the liability to confiscation of vessel Smit Borneo is upheld by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT MUMBAI
Eligible income for allowance of deduction under section 80 IB - Held that:- Scrap generation was part of manufactu - ring activity of the industrial undertaking run by the assessee.Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA,we decide ground in favour of the assessee.
Exclusion of the income from the 80IB deduction on the ground that it was apportionable to the payment of processing charges - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 Job-work got done under own, supervision of the assessee can be considered to,be a part of the manufacturing process of the assessee and in this vies of matte, dyeing and printing although got done as job-work can ‘qualify as manufacturing process. Thus we decide ground in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of interest u/s.36 (l)(iii) on the ground that the same should be considered as relatable to acquisition of capital assets - Held that:- We find that share capital,reserves and surplus as well as work-in-progress for the AY under consideration had gone up drastically as compared to the figures of the last AY.We also find that there was decrease in loan payment by the assessee.While deciding the issue against the assessee these vital factors were not considered by the AO/FAA.But,it is also a fact that the assessee had not filed required details before the departmental authorities.Therefore,we are of the opinion that matter needs further veri -fication.So,in the interest of justice matter is remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication of the issue in question.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Disallowance under section 14A r.w.Rule 8D - Held that:- Provision of Rule 8D of the Rules are not applicable for the year under consideration.But,it is also a fact that the Hon’ble High Court has in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that a reasonable disallowance could be made after considering the facts of the case concerned.In our opinion, in the interest of justice matter should be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- The petitioner has moved this Court at a rather pre mature stage. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Estate Officer and raise the issue of jurisdiction. If such a plea is raised, the Estate Officer shall consider the same as a preliminary issue. Let the preliminary issue be decided within a period of two months of the plea being taken. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Summons issued as per Section 50 (2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Held that:- The present Writ Petitions filed by the Writ Petitioners are not maintainable because of the simple reason that through the summons dated 10.04.2013 they were directed to appear before the Respondent/Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai with records mentioned therein for the purpose of enquiry/ investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act to ascertain the proceeds of crime, in the considered opinion of this Court. The proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
Summons issued to the Petitioners is a preliminary one relating to the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act by the authority concerned. The fact of the matter is that the Adjudicating Authority/machinery under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is designated to adjudge the breach of any statutory obligation and it is not a Court of Law or a Judicial Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not trying a criminal case. But only decides the effect of breach of obligations by the concerned.
Respondent has issued show cause notices/summons dated 10.04.2013 to the Petitioners in question based on authority in terms of Section 50(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and ordinarily, the parties are to project their case or place their case before the authority. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of summons dated 10.04.2013 by the Respondent to the Petitioners. Consequently, the Writ Petitions fail.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion/marketing of goods manufactured by the service recipient under a Multilevel Marketing Service Scheme called the Right Concept Marketing (RCM). On identical facts by the judgement in Shri Surendra Singh Rathore Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I dated 27.6.2013 in Service Tax Appeal N0. 1004 & 1005 of 2011 including a connected appeal filed by Smt. Chanda Bohra, orders of the adjudicating authority impugned therein were confirmed for the reasons recorded therein and the appeals dismissed. 2. For the reasons alike as recorded by us in the judgment dated 27.6.2013 referred to supra, we confirm the orders of the adjudicating authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and reject the appeal. There shall be no orders as to costs.
............
|
