Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2004 2004 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 628 Records

• 2004 (1) TMI 691 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... f Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE and the issue was decided on 16.3.2000 by upholding the Flex Industries order holding that the amortized cost of mould supplied to free by customers to job workers was required to be included in the assessable value. The Mutual Industries order is reported in 2000 (37) RLT 703 (CEGAT-LB) RET (L.B.-CEGAT)-1490 2000 (117) ELT 578. The Tribunal further held that penal action was not warranted when the issue was not free from doubt during the period under consideration. We also note that in the case of WIL itself, the penalty was set-aside on the above basis, by Final Order Nos. C-1/56-57/WZB/2001 dt 8.1.2001. The ratio of the above orders is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. Following the ratio thereof, we hold that intention to evade payment of duty is not established and hence the extended period of limitation is not applicable; accordingly we set aside the interest and penalty and allow the appeal. Pronounced in Court.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 690 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... established in Attorney General v. Clarkson that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act in ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation cannot alter that previous legislation; but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier Act'." 9. So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Naveen Traders is concerned, the same is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the case. The said decision was given with reference to the Notification of "Cattle fodder including green fodder, chuni, bhusi, chhilka, chokar jai gwar, de-oiled" and the commodity rice bran, rice husk and paddy husk were not under consideration. 10. For the reasons stated above, all the revisions have no force and are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether a State has a authority to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Article 165 of the Constitution of India?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 688 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion of the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly reduced the penalty. 4. Shri R.N. Katyal, CHA submitted that the service tax was new concept, therefore, they were not fully aware of the provisions of this Act at the relevant time and thereafter when it was pointed out to them now they were required to pay service tax. 5. I find that section 80 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78 or section 79 no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. As the provision of section 80 of the Act provide no penal action in case explained reason for delay, hence, in these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a penalty of ₹ 20,000 under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposed. Appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the applicants have accepted a part of the benefit under the VRS in terms of direction No.1 or not?

  Whether having accepted the benefit under the scheme by withdrawing and utilisation thereof they are not permitted to approbate and reprobate?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the grants of leases were made against the prohibition contained in Rule 3A and were rightly held by the High Court to be invalid?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether once a confiscation proceeding is initiated the jurisdiction of the criminal court in terms of Section 59-G of Indian Forest Act, 1927 being barred, the High Court also cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim release of the property. The High Court can exercise such a power only in exercise of its power of judicial review?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 683 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... harma Chemical Works reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) (2003) 5 SCC 60. For the reasons set out therein, this appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he Learned Departmental Representative. In the case of the appellant itself in Final Order No. 579/2002 dated 14.11.2002 and Final Order Nos. 599-600/2002 dated 2.12.2002, we had taken the view that the sale has taken place at the factory gate and that the freight and insurance charges cannot be added to the assessable value. The nature of the sale is not different in the present appeals also. In Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. CCE, 1997 (22) RLT 5 (SC) 1997 (94) ELT 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that the difference between the amount collected by the manufacturer by way of freight and insurance and the actual expense incurred cannot be made part of the assessable value. The ratio of the above decision would directly apply to the facts of the present appeals. We, therefore, set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeals. The appellant will be entitled to all consequential relief. Operative part of the order was pronounced in the Court on 13.1.2004.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
  

  How far and to what extent a writ of or in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the Union of India to pay salary to the Officers of the High Court in a particular scale of pay?

  Whether this Court, would permit judicial review and, if any, to what extent will vary from case to case and no broad principles can be laid down therefor?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 11, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) valid?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the requirements of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been met?

  Whether in view of the infirmities noticed by the Trial Court and the High Court, they were justified in directing acquittal of Nathu Singh and Mangi Lal?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 678 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... bunal has examined evidence in great detail with regard to manufacturing of pouches. It also noted that no specific finding has been recorded by the Commissioner about the pouches purchased from Mega Plast Industries. The Tribunal after examining the evidence of Hare Ram and others, who are dealers in the article in question and on a totality of the circumstances, arrived at the conclusion that the statements were not reliable and were not corroborated in material particulars. The initial burden was on the Department to prove the allegations of the clandestine receipt of raw material or manufacture and removal of the final products. The Tribunal expressed an opinion that from the evidence brought on records by the Department and referred to in the judgment, such burden did not stand discharged. Thus, purely on appreciation of evidence the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion and in our opinion there is no question of law involved. Hence, CM and the main case are dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 677 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to the goods action can only be taken against the purchaser and not the seller. 6. I do not find any infirmity in the order of Tribunal. Unless certificate is found forged or obtained as a result of collusion, in the hand of the seller exemption cannot be denied. See Bharat Iron Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1994 U.P.T.C. 130; Indra Steels v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1995 U.P.T.C. 4, Gaurav Traders v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1996 (9) N.T.N. 262 and M/s. Chunni Lal Parshadi Mal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1996 U.P.T.C. 747 (SC). In the instant case no case has been made out that the certificates were forged or obtained as a result of collusion. Therefore, exemption has been rightly allowed by the Assessing Authority. There was no illegality or impropriety in the assessment order and Tribunal has rightly quashed the order passed under Section 10-B of the Act. 7. In the result, revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether an insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers, in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the evidence, which is all subsequent to the last date of filing of the nomination paper, can be looked into in order to ascertain as to who had been set up as a candidate by the Congress Party?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 674 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the election of the appellant in terms of Sections 100 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was valid on the ground that he stood disqualified being the holder of a post of profit under the State of Assam?

  Whether the appellant being a holder of an office of profit disentitled himself from contesting the election in terms of Article 191 of the Constitution of India?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of cancellation of bail granted earlier?

  ---

• 2004 (1) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether an arbitration clause in a contract agreement survives despite purported satisfaction?thereof?

  Held that:- The fact situation in the present case, would lead to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement subsists because disputes as regard final bill arose prior to its acceptance thereof in view the fact that the same was prepared by the respondent but was not agreed upon in its entirety by the appellant herein. The appellant has not pleaded that upon submission of the final bill by the respondent herein any negotiation or settlement took place as a result whereof the final bill, as prepared by the appellant, was accepted by the respondent unequivocally and without any reservation therefor.

  The respondent herein immediately after receiving the payment of the final bill, lodged its protest and reiterated its claims. Interpretation and/or application of clause 52 of the agreement would constitute a dispute which would fall for consideration of the arbitrator. The effect of the correspondences between the parties would have to be determined by the arbitrator, particularly as regard the claim of the respondent that the final bill was accepted by it without prejudice.

  The appellant never made out a case that any novation of the contract agreement took place or the the contract agreement was substituted by a new agreement. Only in the event, a case of creation of new agreement is made out the question of challenging the same by the respondent would have arisen. The conduct of the appellant would show that on receipt of the notice of the respondent through its advocate dated 21.12.1991 the same was not rejected outright but existence of disputes was accepted and the matter was sought to be referred to the arbitration.Only when the clarificatory letter was issued the plea of settlement of final bill was raised.

  The finding of the High Court that a prima facie in the sense that there are triable issues before the Arbitrator so as to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator under the 1940 Act although emanates from the reference, it is trite, that in a given situation the arbitrator can determine all questions of law and fact including the construction of the contract agreement. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

1234567........ 32