9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 61 to 80 of 146 Records Search Text: Vam organic chemicals limited |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (146) |
|
2007 (3) TMI 709 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that high speed diesel oil used in a generator for electricity generation qualifies for concessional tax benefits under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized that the generator was considered machinery and that the law does not restrict the use of items in electricity generation solely for sale purposes. Therefore, the court dismissed the revisions challenging the denial of concessional tax rates for high speed diesel oil used in manufacturing activities.
2004 (2) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal determined that "Anpol" is classified as a residue from the food industry under Heading 23.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, overturning previous decisions and allowing the appeals. The analysis covered manufacturing processes, Tariff interpretation, exemption eligibility, penalties, and limitation periods, providing a thorough legal evaluation of the case.
2003 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal in a case concerning disallowance of Modvat credit for molasses shortage and clearance under Rule 173H. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence to prove the molasses shortage, highlighting discrepancies in the Department's evidence and emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in such cases. The Commissioner's decision to drop the demand due to insufficient evidence was upheld, underscoring the necessity of corroboration in establishing claims of shortages or discrepancies.
2003 (4) TMI 527 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The Court allowed the petition seeking a mandamus for the refund of sales tax/trade tax charged by the respondents, amounting to Rs. 16,09,560.61 along with interest, under the MOU Scheme. It found the tax charged by the respondents to be illegal, violating the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Court directed the respondents to refund the entire amount along with 15 per cent interest within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to the refund.
1995 (2) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal denied MODVAT credit on Nylon Filament Yarn, ruling that it must be specified as an input under Rule 57A to qualify. The appellant's argument for credit on duty paid intermediate products was rejected, emphasizing compliance with Rule 57A. The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to Rule 57A specifications for MODVAT credit eligibility under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2022 (2) TMI 680 - CESTAT BANGALORE The appellate tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to finalize the assessment based on accurate values and grant the appellant the appropriate refund. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process under the Customs Act, 1962 in determining duty liabilities and refund claims.
2021 (6) TMI 713 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the payment of the differential duty by the appellant qualified as a pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the appellant was entitled to a refund and should not be subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal directed the authorities to process the refund promptly in compliance with the relevant circular.
2020 (3) TMI 817 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court set aside the penalty imposed under Section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on a company for utilizing diesel purchased against Form III-B for manufacturing sugar. The court found the penalty arbitrary and lacking proper justification, remanding the matter back to the Trade Tax Tribunal for a detailed inquiry. The revisionist was permitted to submit relevant documents to support their claim, and the court ruled in favor of the revisionist, directing a fresh decision within three months.
2004 (2) TMI 693 - CESTAT BANGALORE The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited, setting aside the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found that the appellants had reversed the Modvat credit on inputs before the Show Cause Notice was issued, negating the application of Rule 57CC. It concluded that the demand for 8% duty on ghee was not applicable, citing relevant case law and the absence of a specific recovery mechanism under the Central Excise Act or Rules.
1997 (1) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The tribunal held that Modvat Credit on Residual Fuel Oil (RFO) and Low Density Oil (LDO) used to generate electricity for manufacturing iron and steel products is allowable. The tribunal interpreted Rule 57A to include "inputs used as fuel," emphasizing that electricity generated by D.G. sets using RFO and LDO qualifies for Modvat Credit. The tribunal rejected the department's restrictive interpretation, concluding that such inputs are essential for manufacturing and should be eligible for credit. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the previous denials and allowed the appeals.
1991 (2) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the Respondents properly declared inputs under Rule 57G, were eligible for MODVAT Credit under Rule 57C and Rule 57D(2), and were entitled to credit even though some intermediate products were cleared outside the factory. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the Respondents.
1991 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for money credit under Notification 231/87 as they met the conditions of the notification regarding the manufacture of acetone using indigenously produced ethyl alcohol. The Tribunal applied a strict construction at the stage of applicability but a liberal interpretation once established. The departmental clarifications and subsequent amendment supported the appellants' position, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.
2024 (11) TMI 281 - Supreme Court (LB) The judgment determines that Entry 8 of List II encompasses both industry-based and product-based aspects, limiting Parliament's legislative competence under Entry 52 of List I to only the fields covered by existing laws. 'Intoxicating liquors' in Entry 8 of List II is confined to alcoholic beverages causing intoxication, excluding non-potable alcohol. The presence of Section 18G of the IDRA signifies Parliament's intention to occupy the field under Entry 33 of List III, thereby ousting State legislative power in these matters, even without a notified order. The Synthetics (7J) judgment is overruled regarding its contrary interpretation.
2020 (2) TMI 425 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 234(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the fee imposed is not a penalty but a charge for late filing of returns. It concluded that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and services rendered, and the classification of defaulters as a separate class is reasonable and justified, not violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition No.21628 of 2018 was closed.
2016 (12) TMI 527 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appellate tribunal set aside the orders related to duty recovery, confiscation, and penalties, citing violations of natural justice. The appellant was granted relief, and refunds were directed to be made in accordance with the law.
2011 (10) TMI 561 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of excess tax paid on coal purchases at a reduced rate, citing the principle of unjust enrichment. The petitioner failed to prove that the burden of the higher tax rate was not passed on to consumers, as required by relevant case law and precedent. The court found that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support their claim, leading to the denial of the refund based on unjust enrichment principles.
2011 (6) TMI 517 - Himachal Pradesh High Court The court rejected the petition challenging the withdrawal of tax deferment benefit for a liquor manufacturing company. It upheld the State's decision to retrospectively include the liquor industry in the negative list, citing public policy and health concerns. The court found the doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable as the petitioner did not show a detrimental change in position. The State's action was deemed legal, and no costs were awarded.
2007 (11) TMI 585 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The High Court allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It held that writ petitions under Article 226 were maintainable despite the availability of a statutory remedy. The subsequent clarification demanding a higher tax rate of 16% was deemed legally unsustainable as it imposed an additional burden on the appellants after the assessment period. The court emphasized that subordinate authorities cannot retrospectively impose increased tax rates based on later clarifications. No costs were awarded.
2004 (4) TMI 635 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT The court upheld the classification of distilleries into captive and non-captive units based on production cost differentials. Distilleries cannot challenge prices post-supply if they accepted them without protest initially. The state's power to fix prices of rectified spirit was affirmed, with restrictions on imposing excise duty. An additional appellant's grievance for reclassification was acknowledged for examination within three months. Writ appeals were dismissed, except for the reclassification review, with each party bearing its costs.
2019 (1) TMI 604 - DELHI HIGH COURT The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining that the levy imposed under this section is a fee and not a penalty. The court concluded that the fee serves to regularize delayed filing of TDS returns and is not confiscatory or oppressive. Various judgments were cited to support this decision, and the court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of Section 234E, with no order as to costs.
|
