|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 571 Records
-
2005 (12) TMI 531 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cally mentioned in S.R.O. No. 403/94. The exemption notification has to be strictly interpreted and unless the item falls within the four corners of the notification the benefit of exemption cannot be extended to those items legal position is well-settled by several decisions of the apex Court. Reference may be made to the latest decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Punjab Fibres Ltd. 2005 139 STC 200, Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2004 137 STC 389, etc. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, we find no infirmity in the decisions taken by the various Tribunals. We reiterate that the assessees would be entitled to get the benefit of S.R.O. No. 593/04 only with effect from January 1, 2000 and the letter issued by the Government or the clarificatory letter issued by the Commissioner would not operate retrospectively since they are issued without the authority of law. The tax revision cases and sales tax revisions would stand dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 530 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evied on the additional sales tax, determined at the time of final assessment when full amount of tax due on the basis of the return furnished by an assessee, had been paid . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that under section 7(2) of the said Act, a dealer is required to file with its return, a receipt showing deposit of the full amount of tax due on the basis of the return . In other words, a dealer is required to pay the full amount of tax that becomes due, on the basis of the particulars in regard to the turnover and taxable turnover, disclosed in the return. If full amount of tax due on the basis of the return, had been paid by the dealer, interest under section 11B of the said Act cannot be levied. In our opinion, the ratio of the said decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the amount of tax due from the petitioner under the Act, had been paid in accordance with the return
-
2005 (12) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT
Whether causes of action in terms of both the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act although may be different, would a suit be maintainable in a court only because it has the jurisdiction to entertain the same in terms of Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act?
Held that:- In this case, the Delhi High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction in terms of the 1957 Act. The primary ground upon which the jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court was invoked was the violation of the 1958 Act, but in relation thereto, the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act could not be invoked.
The plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi. It has not been able to establish that it carries on any business at Delhi. For our purpose, the question as to whether the defendant had been selling its produce in Delhi or not is wholly irrelevant. It is possible that the goods manufactured by the plaintiff are available in the market of Delhi or they are sold in Delhi but that by itself would not mean that the plaintiff carries on any business in Delhi.
It is not in dispute before us that the application for registration of the trade mark was to be filed either at Bombay or at Ahmedabad. The objections thereto by the plaintiff were also required to be filed at the said places. The jurisdiction of the Delhi court could not have been invoked only on the ground that advertisement in respect thereof was published in the Trade Marks Journal. Section 62 of the 1957 Act, therefore, will have no application. The plaintiff has no branch office at Delhi. Its manufacturing facilities are not available at Delhi. Both its trade mark and copyright are also not registered at Delhi.
In this case we have not examined the question as to whether if a cause of action arises under the 1957 Act and the violation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act is only incidental, a composite suit will lie or not, as such a question does not arise in this case.
-
2005 (12) TMI 528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mandatory pre-deposit - right of appeal - time of initiation of assessment proceedings - whether it is the date of assessment order or the date on which return is filed or required to be filed as per the statute or the date of issuance of pre-assessment notice? - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the amended provisions of the Act are not given retrospective effect as and from an enterior date. In other words, the amended provisions are prospective. According to the appellants, the above restrictions placed on the appeals will not relate to the assessments and returns filed by the assessees prior to 14-6 -1999. It is their submission that the amendment introducing condition of pre-deposit being substantive in nature cannot have retrospective effect and that their right of appeal is governed by the provisions on the dates they filed their monthly returns, which were prior to the Act 14 of 1999, and as on the said date, there was no mandatory condition for pre-deposit of disputed tax before the appeal was lodged.
We hold that the crucial date on which the right of the assessees to prefer an appeal u/s 31 or Sec.36 of the Act is the date on which the returns are filed under the Act. In all these appeals, returns were filed long prior to the date when the provisions of Sec.31 of the Act was amended by virtue of Act 14 of 1999. Further more, it is not disputed by the parties that the aforesaid amendments to the Act have not been given retrospective effect as and from an anterior date and those amendments are prospective. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be entertained without insisting of pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as per the amended provisions of the Act.
In the result, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ appeals preferred by the Revenue, are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. The appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeals filed by the assessees/appellants without insisting for pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
-
2005 (12) TMI 527 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... epending upon any adjustment needed. This issue has been decided by the hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 261 ITR 275, wherein it has been held that (headnote) ldquo that merely because the modvat credit was an irreversible credit available to manufacturers upon purchase of duty-paid raw material that would not amount to income which was liable to be taxed under the Act. Income was not generated to the extent of the modvat credit on unconsumed raw material rdquo . A similar issue has been decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the assessee rsquo s favour in the assessee rsquo s own case in I. T. A. No. 7909/M/94 for the assessment year 1992-93. Respectfully following the decision of the hon rsquo ble apex court this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 526 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vested in respondent No. 3 and due process of law and the action in question, hence, cannot be sustained. 14. The petitioner shall not be issued any further summons in relation to the same subject matter, unless and until the respondent department is in possession of any specific evidence requiring the presence of the partners of the petitioner firm after coming across such evidence pursuant to inquiries/investiga-tions in case of Sulekhram Steel Pvt. Ltd. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. 16. Considering the facts of the case, exemplary costs are required to be imposed on respondent No. 3 which arc quantified at a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In the first instance, the department shall pay the costs to the petitioner within a period of fortnight from today and recover the same personally from respondent No. 3. 17. At this stage, Mr. Malkan makes a request to stay the operation of this judgment. Considering the facts of the case the request is rejected.
-
2005 (12) TMI 525 - HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture and production of bread was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act - Claim of deduction u/s 1OB allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 524 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... case on the ground that Revenue has gone in appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court. The ld. Chartered Accountant, Shri P.C. Anand, said that the Tribunal rsquo s decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.E. Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. citation 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). The Supreme Court observed the following ldquo The above would show that even the amended Section 73 takes in only the case of assessees who are liable to file return under Section 70. Admittedly, the liability to file return is cast on the appellants only under Section 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. The above being the position show cause notices issued to the appellants invoking Section 73 are not maintainable. rdquo Since, the issue is squarely covered by the Apex Court decision we allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (12) TMI 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Whether penalty can be imposed for offences committed prior to the introduction of Section 11AC in the statute book - goods allegedly removed without payment of duty - goods cleared by the appellant were manufactured and marketable – Held that:- He has removed goods without filing declarations and without even having himself registered as an SSI unit - appellant cannot contend that he was ignorant of the fact that the goods manufactured by him were excisable - show cause notice clearly states as to how the larger period is invocable - if the adjudication proceedings were conducted after Section 11AC has been brought to the statute book, penalty under that Section could be levied – penalty under Section 11AC upheld
-
2005 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... Therefore they were directed to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,03,111/- which was collected from their customers illegally by issuing invoices. Further penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. emsp From the aforesaid submissions made by the assessee and the findings of the original adjudicating authority analysis that of the Commissioner (Appeals) no where the ground taken before me is urged. Even otherwise this aspect has been covered in the finding given by the original adjudicating authority has been confirmed. I do not see any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by both the authorities below. The assessee himself had admitted the facts of clearance of goods on which duty paid as it is under invoices under Rule 57G/57T which are not authoritative documents for passing Modvat credit. The assessee is not the registered dealer. Thus the appeals lacks merits, accordingly rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (12) TMI 521 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... no dispute that the import of reptile skins is subject not only to CITES but also to Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Although the consignment was accompanied by the CITES certificate, the import of the goods being prohibited under the Wild Life Protection Act, the goods have rightly been held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and the importer liable to penalty under Section 112. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order however, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). 4. emsp Subject to the above reduction in penalty, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 520 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Duty liability - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... immunity from interest liability. Therefore, the applicant shall pay interest on the duty liability at 10 simple interest per annum. The Revenue shall calculate the interest liability and inform the applicant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the applicant shall discharge the same on receipt of intimation from Revenue within 15 days thereafter and report compliance to Revenue and the Commission. (iii) The applicant is granted immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Similar immunities are granted to the co-applicants Dr. G. Manohar, Managing Director and Shri P. Venkataraman, Manager-Materials, M/s. GE BE Pvt. Limited, No. 60 Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefiled, Bangalore-560 066. 12. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The attention of the applicants is also drawn to Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2005 (12) TMI 519 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement - Duty liability - Clandestine clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ed. The Department shall calculate the interest liability and communicate the same to the applicant company within 15 days from date of receipt of this order and the applicant company shall pay the same within a fortnight thereafter, and report compliance to Revenue and the Bench. (c) Immunities from penalty and confiscation proposed in SCN are granted. The seized goods shall be taken into a stock register and cleared on payment of appropriate duty. (d) Immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also granted as requested. (e) In view of the immunities granted to the applicant firm, immunity from penalty proposed in the SCN and prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944 is also granted to the co-applicant Shri D. Mohan Reddy. 10. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of sub section (1) of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Attention of the applicants is drawn specifically to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K ibid.
-
2005 (12) TMI 518 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) - Recall of Tribunal’s order - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ly when duty is sought to be evaded. In the present case there is no such allegation and therefore the goods should not have been confiscated. I agree with this contention of the ld. Advocate. If at all any penalty is to be imposed it could have been only under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules for not maintaining records. I notice that the SSI units is exempt from maintaining statutory records and therefore imposition of penalty under this Rule also is debatable. Had the department come to a conclusion that the appellant had already crossed the SSI limit the whole picture could have been different. Since there is no such finding it cannot be held that the appellant was evading Central Excise duty. Having regard to the facts mentioned above I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) order which is not based on the findings of the lower authority has to be set aside. I accordingly do so. 4. emsp The ROM application and the appeal are disposed off accordingly (Dictated in court)
-
2005 (12) TMI 517 - ITAT CHENNAI
Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... onditions must exist and if either of them is absent, the CIT, in our view, cannot assume jurisdiction under section 263. Here in this case, the audit report and other relevant records go to show that there is no violation, of section 40A(3) and that being the case the CIT has not given any reason under which material evidence which he is in possession so as to satisfy himself with, that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT has not satisfied the requirement for invoking the section 263 discretionary powers. The learned Departmental Representative also could not say regarding the assumption of jurisdiction particularly in this case by the learned CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the learned CIT passed under section 263, dated 23-3-2005, for the assessment year 2002-03. 4. In the result, the assessee succeeds and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 516 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund Claim - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nquiry made by the respondent. Basing on the said letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim though barred by time. The Id. DR contends that statutory provisions can not be set at naught basing on such letter which can not provide limitation nor gave rise fresh cause of action. Having convinced about the contentions raised by the Id. DR. and having found that the impugned order is not based on the merits, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside. The revenue appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in court)
-
2005 (12) TMI 515 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paid on exempted goods by supplier ... ... ... ... ..... er and correct, who has allowed Modvat credit of the duty amount paid by the supplier in spite of the exemption. The above decision refer to Catena of decisions. 3. emsp The ld. DR does not show any decision contrary to the above decision except the Board Circulars. The Board Circular is already considered in the above Tribunal decision of Noel Pharma. The Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmednagar, in favour of the revenue and has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). On the perusal of the same, I find no irregularity and illegality in Order-in-Appeal. Therefore, I confirm the same and the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (12) TMI 514 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r Chapter-VI-A, first step is to compute income under the head Business and profession and then to compute gross total income. However, the assessee had tried to completely disown the provisions of section 32 of the Act as a part of tax planning, so that it may claim such depreciation, when the income of Silvassa unit becomes taxable. The basic motive of such tax planning is to avoid the payment of legitimate taxes. The beneficial provisions available under the Income-tax Act cannot be claimed to be lsquo disowned rsquo in such a way. 3.4 In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A), who confirmed the allowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 85,81,644 in respect of fixed assets installed at Silvassa Unit which resulted in reduction of total income derived from the said unit for the purpose of special deduction. The same is upheld. 4. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and that of the assessee rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 513 - ITAT MUMBAI
Charitable or religious trust ... ... ... ... ..... view of our finding with regard to the earlier grounds that the income earned by the assessee trust through holding meetings/seminars, which are incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee trust, are not to be considered as business income, we hold that the amount of Rs. 19,06,809 applied by the assessee trust towards capital expenditure are to be considered as amount applied towards attainment of its objectives. 21. With regard to ground No. 9, we find that interest income and dividend income were allowed to be exempted under section 11 of the IT Act for the preceding assessment years. The facts and circumstances in the present year being similar and considering the facts that the revenue authorities have not brought any material on record to show that these incomes are not eligible for exemption, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow exemption in respect of interest and dividend income. 22. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 512 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Demand and Interest - Misdeclaration of value - Import - Notification No. 86/94-Cus
........
|
