9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 777 Records Search Text: Gtc ltd |
| Search Results |
| Circulars (4) Case-Laws (763) Forum (2) Articles (7) News (1) |
|
2002 (11) TMI 688 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Civil Courts retain jurisdiction even with an arbitral clause but must refer parties to arbitration if conditions under section 8 are met. The validity of the arbitration agreement can be challenged in Civil Court under section 45, but the arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its jurisdiction. An injunction to restrain arbitration is inappropriate if the arbitral clause is valid and the parties have chosen arbitration as their dispute resolution forum.
1995 (4) TMI 319 - SC Order MR. J.S. VERMA AND MR. K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed ... ... ...
2015 (10) TMI 119 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the joint confirmation of duties and penalties against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. Chinar Cigarettes Ltd., emphasizing that such joint confirmation is not legally sustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision within six months, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. Additionally, the Tribunal stressed the importance of supplying all relied upon and non-relied upon documents to the appellant for a fair adjudication process. It directed the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of various deponents to uphold fairness and transparency, emphasizing the need for expeditious completion of re-adjudication within six months to avoid unnecessary delays.
1999 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147, dismissing the assessees' challenge. It found that subsequent reliable information revealed the commission payments claimed were bogus. The Tribunal cited case laws supporting the reopening of assessments based on new information. The disallowance of commission payments totaling Rs. 19,91,230 and Rs. 12,01,958 was upheld due to lack of genuineness, supported by evidence including admissions of hawala entries and fabricated transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the assessees' failure to disprove the evidence and upheld the decision based on relevant judicial precedents.
2015 (9) TMI 462 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper supply of documents, adherence to cross-examination rights, and specific findings on the actual liable party. The Tribunal also directed the Registry to inform the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, about the order. The appeals and stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
2016 (6) TMI 1264 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the credit of Service Tax paid on various services. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing previous decisions favoring the assessee and holding that the issues had already been decided in the assessee's favor.
2014 (5) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the respondent can claim Cenvat credit for Service Tax on certain services related to their business activities. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the integral connection of the services to the business.
2004 (3) TMI 417 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY The Civil Court retains jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and any interim applications until deciding on the validity of the arbitration agreement under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court rejected the petitioner's application to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds, upheld the trial court's decision, and extended interim relief for eight weeks due to a pending appeal before the Apex Court. The Civil Revision Application was rejected.
1997 (8) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking rectification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner alleged errors in the order related to duty payment for cigarettes. The court held that the findings were not erroneous and did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Emphasizing the need for clear and indisputable mistakes for rectification, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petition.
2017 (5) TMI 1574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming the eligibility of outdoor catering, Clearing & Forwarding, and Good Transport Agency services for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.
2011 (10) TMI 324 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the admissibility of service tax paid by a Commission Agent as CENVAT credit under Business Auxiliary Service was rejected. The judge found that the arguments presented did not merit a reversal of the decision made by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The judge referenced previous decisions and rulings, including those by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal, to support the conclusion that the credit should be allowed. Therefore, the original decision allowing the CENVAT credit was affirmed.
2006 (9) TMI 45 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the refund claim, made before the restoration of the credit balance, was not barred by limitation as the eligibility for refund is determined based on the balance in the books on the last date of the quarter. The appellants successfully argued that the issue of limitation was not raised in earlier proceedings and could not be raised at this stage, ultimately securing the refund.
2014 (2) TMI 820 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their appeal and granting a stay on the recovery pending appeal disposal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor regarding the eligibility for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on a Group Insurance Policy for workers, emphasizing that the entire insurance premium cost was part of the final product's cost. The Tribunal held that grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice could not be considered, ultimately deciding in favor of the appellant and waiving the pre-deposit requirement.
2013 (3) TMI 477 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, ruling that transportation costs of essential raw materials, including Service tax paid on GTA service for transporting billets, qualify as input services eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of raw materials in manufacturing and rejected the revenue's appeal, affirming the entitlement of the respondents to credit for Service tax paid on billet transportation.
2001 (8) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, granting relief on various grounds such as admission of additional grounds for accrued liability and technical know-how expenses, deduction for guarantee obligations, and payments for trade-mark license fee and technical information. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for profit on the sale of Bhandup Division and credit balances written back. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow 50% of office-cum-transit premises expenses as office expenses and apply Section 37(4) to the remaining 50%.
2013 (7) TMI 834 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the appellant in a case concerning the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for services used in constructing and maintaining a township within factory premises. Despite conflicting High Court judgments, the Tribunal considered the appellant's financial hardship and the debatable nature of the issue. The appellant was granted relief as a substantial amount had already been deposited, with recovery of the remaining balance stayed pending appeal disposal.
2001 (3) TMI 491 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld mis-declaration charges in a case involving galvanised pipes and tubes, leading to penalties under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Penalties were imposed on appellants, including Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. and Steel Tubes of India Ltd., for mis-declaration and improper export attempts. Despite confirming mis-declaration, penalties were reduced considering duty benefits and losses, with penalties reduced for Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. and Steel Tubes of India Ltd. and set aside for Hari & Co. due to specific penalty notice absence. The judgment stressed adherence to show cause notice allegations for penalty imposition, resulting in modified penalties based on circumstances.
2003 (3) TMI 99 - Supreme Court The Union of India appealed against the Gauhati High Court's order quashing the Collector's decision due to the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine specific individuals. The High Court found this denial breached Principles of Natural Justice and directed the Collector to allow cross-examination before deciding the matter afresh. The Collector's ruling was challenged for violating Principles of Natural Justice, leading to its setting aside and a directive for a fresh examination with cross-examination opportunities. The reliance on statements without cross-examination was deemed unfair, resulting in the Collector's order being set aside. An appeal against the interim order was disposed of without costs after the main matter was resolved.
1990 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Amrit Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., overturning the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred. The Tribunal held that their letter dated 17th May, 1984 constituted a valid refund claim, despite not being in the prescribed form or addressed to the Assistant Collector directly. The delay in filing the formal claim was justified by the understanding that the excess duty would be adjusted later. Consequently, the appellants were granted the refund based on the excess duty paid and the valid refund claim established through the letter.
2016 (4) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication, emphasizing compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The appeals were disposed of with directions for proper examination of witnesses and assessment of the admissibility of statements. The Tribunal stressed the requirement for credible evidence to establish the appellants' involvement in the alleged clandestine activities, highlighting the importance of following procedural requirements for evidence in adjudication and criminal proceedings.
|
