Advanced Search Results

Silkone International and Rathi Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC455

carved out by bringing in amendment to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act vide Section 76 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the RF and penalty.3. The learned JCDR fairly concedes that the issue

Sneh Enterprises Vs. Commnr. of Customs, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 2, 3, 3(6), 9A and 9A(8); Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 15, 15(1), 15A, 46 and 68; Finance Act, 2004 - Sections 26 and 76

Reported in : 2006(202)ELT7(SC); JT2006(8)SC587; 2006(9)SCALE95; (2006)7SCC714; 2006(2)LC1171(SC)

not contemplate application of the provisions of the Customs Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. By Section 76 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, indisputably, Sub-Section (8) was inserted stating the provisions of the Customs Act … fact that Sub-Section (8) of Section 9A was introduced in the year 2004 by reason of Finance (No.2) Act, 2004.Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Additional Solicitor General, however, would submit that in view of the judgment of this Court

Sneh Enterprises Vs. Cc Overruled

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC249

Matched in: Citation (2004)(97)ECC249

Amit Estate Organizer Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Ahd.)1018

the basis of report obtained under such reference. Section 142A has been introduced in the statute book by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with retrospective effect from 15th Nov., 1972, according to which for the purpose of making an assessment or … rejected, reliance was placed on the following: (i) Uttam Chuna Pathar Udyog v. ITO (1997) 59 TTJ (Raj) 763 : (1998) 65 ITD 466 (Raj) Accounts-Rejection-Minor defects in accounts-Assessee wrongly showing the attendance of workers on 29th

Mr. R.B. Bahutule, Pharma Chem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2004)(166)ELT233Tri(Mum.)bai

Matched in: Citation (2004)(166)ELT233Tri(Mum.)bai

N & N Chopra Consltants Pvt. Ltd. Vs.principal Commissioner, Goods ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

the amount of service tax shown in para 70.1 against them under Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 read with Section 66 of the Act; I confirm the demand of SHEC amounting to Rs.29,370/- (Rupees twenty … contention that in the circumstances of the case, the contention about the excessive imposition of penalties both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant urges that the Tribunal fell into error, in upholding

thermax Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2008)12STT89

services rendered by them. They refer to Clause (viii) of Explanation 1 to Section 67 as inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from September 10, 2004, according to which the amount of interest collected is outside the ambit … Assistant Commissioner also levied interest under Section 75 of the said Act and also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the

Cce., Ahmedabad Vs. M/S. Om Sai Engg Works and Others

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Service Tax

3, and 5 of the above Table, the original adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the respondents for evasion of service tax during the … Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd. in Central Excise Appeal No. 110 of 2004; and (d). BNP Paribas Equities India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service … respondents for evasion of service tax during the said periods, but did not impose penalty on them under Section 76 of the Act relying upon the following decisions:(i). CCE Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd. [2011 (22) STR 622 … No.Appeal No.RespondentAgainst Order in Appeal No. Passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot.1.ST/ 441/ 2012Om Sai Engineering Works, Bhavnagar77/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ2.ST/ 440/ 2012Sonthalia Steel

Standard Chartered Bank and ors. Etc. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CompanyCriminal

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 232(3), 232(3)(1), 276B, 276C, 277, 278 and 278B; Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1972; Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 - Sections 35HA(3); Wealth Tax Act, 1957; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 7, 11, 62, 417 and 420; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 56(1); Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 48A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 235; Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices (Amendment) Act, 1984 ; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 13, 19(1), 44(2), 18(1), 18A, 50, 51, 56, 57 and 58; Companies Act, 1956; Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls Act, 1956 - Sections 3(1); Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act No. 34 of 1976; Employees Provident Fund Act; Genera

Reported in : AIR2005SC2622; 2005(4)ALD10(SC); III(2005)BC119(SC); [2005]125CompCas513(SC); (2005)4CompLJ464(SC); 2005(3)CTC39; (2005)195CTR(SC)465; 119(2005)DLT687(SC); 2005(100)ECC457; (2005) 4 SCC 530

on 16th September, 2003. Section 278B was promptly amended by Parliament by insertion of sub-section (3) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.10.2004. The inserted sub-section (3) reads as under:'278B (3) Where an offence under this Act has been … as the mandatory term of imprisonment would not be available even in the case of a natural person. 76. The maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia',like all maxims, only tells us that law does not contemplate something

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Video Time

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping penalties imposed on the respondents under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The respondents are cable operator and they have failed to file return within time prescribed and … 77 and at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for everyday's late payment of service tax under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty on the ground that under the Tax