9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 146 Records Search Text: Vam organic chemicals limited |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (146) |
|
2013 (9) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The Court held that expenses incurred for project report preparation and foreign trips were of capital nature, not revenue, ruling in favor of the revenue department. The Court emphasized the purpose and effect of the expenses, distinguishing them from previous precedents and concluding that they did not qualify as revenue expenditure. The decision upheld the department's appeal, considering the expenses as capital expenditure for a new project and unrelated business discussions during foreign trips. The judgment provided a clear analysis of the legal principles applied, ensuring consistency in tax law interpretation.
2010 (2) TMI 937 - Supreme Court The High Court ruled in favor of the manufacturers of chemicals, stating that High Speed Diesel (HSD) was used in the manufacturing process and should not be deleted from recognition certificates under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the Department's action to delete HSD should be viewed as an amendment, not rectification. The Court directed the assessing authority to treat show-cause notices as proposals to amend certificates, ensuring hearings for each assessee and reasoned orders. The cases were remitted for individual decisions, with amendments effective only from the notice date. The State of Uttar Pradesh's appeals were disposed of without costs.
2006 (10) TMI 508 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that the respondents were not entitled to a refund based on unjust enrichment principles, despite certain payments made. The Court directed the respondents to file a refund application within four weeks, emphasizing the need to consider unjust enrichment for all amounts passed on to customers, including those covered by bank guarantees. The Court highlighted the importance of unjust enrichment in such cases, referencing previous judgments. The authority was tasked with assessing if there would be unjust enrichment for the respondents based on collections made during the relevant period.
2005 (8) TMI 512 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant credit equivalent to the duty paid on acetic anhydride as per the refund application. The appellant successfully challenged the rejection of the refund application based on limitation and merits, with the court interpreting Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding limitation in cases of duty paid under protest. The appellant's claim for exemption on captively used goods and Rule 56A benefit was upheld, along with their claim for credit on duty paid on acetic anhydride under Rule 9 and Rule 56A.
2005 (6) TMI 230 - ITAT DELHI-E The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals in a case involving various tax disallowances and deductions under the IT Act, 1961. Key outcomes include the vacating of disallowance of gifts as business expenses, consideration of losses of a previous entity in reassessment, allowance of interest on genuine deposits, partial approval of entertainment expenses, and directions to allow deductions without offsetting. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to legal precedents and principles in its decisions.
2003 (10) TMI 635 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that the State lacked legislative competence to levy fees on industrial alcohol under Rule 3(a) of the U.P. Licences for the Possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Spirit Rules, 1976. The Court determined that the fee imposed was essentially a tax disguised as a regulatory fee, lacking a necessary correlation to administrative expenses. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeals, declared the fee invalid, and directed the discharge of bank guarantees furnished by the respondents. This decision emphasized the requirement for a clear correlation between regulatory fees and administrative costs.
2003 (3) TMI 672 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court quashed the circular deleting diesel oil from recognition certificates, ruling it contrary to statutory provisions. The petitioner, a public limited company, was deemed entitled to purchase diesel oil at a concessional rate for manufacturing notified goods. The court interpreted Section 4-B(2) broadly, including diesel oil for generating sets as 'fuel.' The writ petition was allowed, directing respondents to recognize diesel oil for generators as essential for manufacturing notified goods, issuing necessary forms for purchase, with no costs awarded.
2003 (1) TMI 753 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the company in an appeal regarding the applicability of Rule 57 C.C. of the Central Excise Rules on Sulphuric Acid cleared at a Nil rate of duty. The company's compliance with MODVAT credit rules and maintenance of separate accounts for dutiable and exempt final products led to the Tribunal setting aside the demand for payment under Rule 57CC. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to credit rules and maintaining distinct accounts to avoid obligations under the said rule.
2002 (11) TMI 260 - ITAT DELHI-A The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision to invoke Section 263, finding the AO's order prejudicial to Revenue due to errors in allowing deductions under Sections 80-I and 80HH. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee failed to comply with the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) by not properly writing off bad debts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT's actions and decisions in the case.
1999 (12) TMI 835 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court interpreted "otherwise disposed of" in Section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, holding that stock transfers do not fall under this provision. It clarified that penalties apply only when goods are sold or title transferred, not for stock transfers. The impact of the eligibility certificate exempting the revisionist from sales tax was considered, leading to the court's decision to remand the assessment year 1982-83 case for further review and refunding any penalty paid for 1983-84. Sales Tax Revision No. 1476 of 1992 was allowed for 1982-83, and Revision No. 1511 of 1992 for 1983-84 was granted with a refund of penalties.
1998 (12) TMI 633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The Court granted the petitioner's refund claim for purchase tax deposited under protest, rejecting the application of unjust enrichment as the goods sold were transformed into new products, not sold as they were. Drawing on precedent, the Court emphasized that if the tax burden was not passed on to consumers, a refund could be granted. The respondents were directed to refund the amount within three months, with the plea for Supreme Court intervention dismissed based on the Bhadrachalam Paperboards case.
1998 (7) TMI 336 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, set aside the demand for differential duty on packing costs and penalty imposed by the Additional Collector in a case concerning the manufacture of Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM). The case was remanded for further examination to determine if duty is payable on packing costs when the drums or carboys belong to the appellant. The appellant was granted an opportunity for a hearing before a new decision is made, and the appeal was allowed.
1998 (7) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the assessable value determined by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, dismissing the appeal but directing verification of any paid differential duty for adjustment if found due. The Tribunal clarified that the Notification 120/75 exemption does not apply to goods transferred to branch offices, emphasizing duty payment on assessable value for such transfers. The judgment addressed issues regarding duty correctness, adjustment of paid duty, notification applicability, and assessable value determination, offering comprehensive analysis and guidance on each matter.
1997 (5) TMI 396 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that no purchase tax could be levied on the transfer of alcohol within the petitioner's premises due to captive consumption not constituting a sale. The judgment directed the authority to consider refunding the tax paid under protest promptly. The decision was based on the interpretation of the legal definition of sale and the impact of a constitutional amendment on the taxation of industrial alcohol used internally in the chemical factory.
1997 (3) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld that the assessments were provisional under Section 18 of the Customs Act, and the demands were raised within the permissible time limit. The importer's contentions on mis-statement and suppression lacked substantiation from the show cause notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the department's demands.
1997 (1) TMI 512 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the legislative competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh to regulate industrial alcohol and levy a denaturation fee. The Court found the fee of 7 paise per litre reasonable and necessary for regulatory purposes to prevent the diversion of industrial alcohol for human consumption, emphasizing the State's authority in matters concerning public health and intoxicating liquors. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the validity of the State's regulatory measures in this regard.
1988 (10) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., in a case concerning the eligibility for availing credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs when an intermediate product, ethyl alcohol, was not subject to Central Excise duty. The Tribunal interpreted the relevant rules and held that the appellants were entitled to the credit, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide input duty relief for products liable to excise duty. The impugned order was set aside, granting the appellants the benefit of credit for duty paid on inputs despite the exemption of ethyl alcohol from Central Excise duty.
1988 (5) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD The HC Allahabad ruled that excise duty demand should not be collected from the Petitioner until the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) concludes. The Petitioner must provide a Bank guarantee for the disputed amount during the appeal. The Collector (Appeals) should issue a judgment within one month of receiving the court's order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
1987 (6) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the two appellants, providing consequential relief. It held that there was no contravention of Central Excise Rules as the goods were still within the factory premises when discovered, indicating duty payment was not yet due. The order of confiscation of goods and truck, along with the penalties imposed, was set aside. The decision emphasized the importance of interpreting the rules correctly, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants based on a thorough analysis of the case.
2006 (5) TMI 526 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the respondents to deposit 50% of the license fee and file an undertaking to pay the remaining 50% if their writ petition is dismissed. This arrangement aimed to balance the equities, protecting the State's revenue interests while not imposing an undue burden on the licensee. The Court also mandated that any amount paid could be adjusted or refunded with interest if the respondents succeeded in their challenge.
|
