Finance Act 2003 Section 166 - Judgment Search Results

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Leak Proof Engg (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

revenue expenditure in rule 57r 5 amp 57r 8 by finance act 2003 section 149 would render the objection of revenue availed benefit revenue expenditure under section 35 of income tax act 1962 in capital goods revenue is in appeal against that in rule 57r 5 amp 57r 8 by finance act 2003 section 149 would render the objection of revenue in this 11ac and retrospective interest under rule 57u 8 read with section 11ab applicable for demands for extended periods iv defaults in

20 Microns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

products 2 4 i however prior to the enactment of finance act 1990 the heading 25 05 did not have any 2 4 i however prior to the enactment of finance act 1990 the heading 25 05 did not have any sub chemico industries v commissioner of central excise bhopal reported in 2003 56 rlt 396 after considering note 2 to chapter 25 7th february 2000 to 6th october 2001 is barred under section 11a of the act amp the only ground on which

R.R. Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

view of the retrospective amendment to cenvat credit rules by finance act 2010 which allows for reversal of proportionate credit in credit rules 2004 read with section 11ab of central excise act 1944 the notice also proposed imposition of penalty under section of finance act 2010 within the time period stipulated therein section 69 of the finance act 2010 specifically provided that the

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)5STR139

tax under section 65 10 of chapter v of the finance act 1994 which covers banking and other financial services which under section 65 10 of chapter v of the finance act 1994 which covers banking and other financial services which inter hire purchase finance they were liable to service tax under section 65 10 of chapter v of the finance act 1994

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Texchem Corpn. and Medico Labs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

can be seen from the notes on clauses to the finance bill 2001 was to provide a remedy to this existing made in the customs and excise laws by the finance act 2001 it is not disputed that initially these laws did the tribunal in cce bhubaneshioar v oripol industries and ors 2003 56 rlt 974 cegat lb by noting in para 8 made by the finance minister while moving the amendment introducing section 52 2 of the income tax act 1961 as it

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mu ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2010 vide clause zzzzr of section 65 105 of the finance act which defined the said service as 8220 zzzzr taxable other person 8221 prior to 1 7 2010 the said activity was not taxable and the said entry was not carved from other race clubs for the period from 01 04 2003 to 30 06 2006 a show cause notice dated 26 section 73 of the act ibid along with interest under section 75 and imposed penalties under sections 76 77 and 78

K.R. Choksey and Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT566Tri(Mum.)bai

other provisions have been incorporated vide section 83 of the finance bill 1994 therefore there was no requirement to show the that the provisions of section 4 of the central excises act are not attracted but he still maintains that the inclusion 1994 came into operation with effect from 4 7 1994 section 67 of the finance bill which later became the act

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Texchem Corporation and Medico

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(91)ECC434

1981 which does refer to the speech made by the finance minister while moving the amendment introducting section 52 2 of made in the customs and excise laws by the finance act 2001 it is not disputed that initially laws did not the tribunal in cce bhubaneshwar vs oripol industries amp ors 2003 taxindiaonline 09 cestat del by noting in para 8 as placement of the provision under section 52 the marginalnote to section 52 and also the need to avoid a construction that

Tiki Tar Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

hence the appeal by the assesses 6 section 117 of finance ac has been amended to read that notwithstanding anything contained reported in 1999 112 elt 365 sc 4 the finance act 2000 section 117 was amended with relevant rules validating the 1999 112 elt 365 sc 4 the finance act 2000 section 117 was amended with relevant rules validating the above provision

Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

notification no 30 97 by section 127 1 of the finance act 2003 read with si no 7 of the third been retrospectively amended by section 127 1 of the finance act 2003 read with si no 7 of the third schedule 2003 and the retrospective amendments made through the finance bill 2003 to exclude add from calculation of value for sad we amendment 8 the appellants have challenged liability to penalty under section 112 on the ground that they have paid bcd subsequent