Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. These appeals relate to Service tax on goods transport service received by the assessees during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. Appeal No. S/21/03 filed by the assessee is against a demand of service tax affirmed by the lower appellate authority, whereas appeal No. S/83/04 filed by the Department is against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent holding that no service tax was leviable on goods transport service received by them for the above period.2. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the assesses submits that the question whether Service tax on goods transport service received by a person during the above period could be demanded after six months from 12.5.2000 has already been settled by this Bench in a series of cases.Two decisions cited by ld. Counsel are as follows:Futura Fibres and Anr. v. CCE, Chennai 3. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that, as in the above cases, Show-cause notices for recovery of service tax for the aforesaid period were i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC227
1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had availed services of Goods Transport Operator during the period from November, 1997 to June, 1998.After retrospective amendment of the provisions of Sections 65, 66 and 67 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, show cause notice dated 2.8.2002 was issued to the respondent for recovery of service tax under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2002, which re-validated the levy and collection of service tax from the user of services of Goods Transport Operators. The demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority by following the decision of the Tribunal in case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE Meerut-II and similar other decisions.2. It is contended by the Revenue that the Tribunal's decision in case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. has not yet attained the finality as they have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)13STJ333CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.2. The appellants had received Goods Transport Operator's service during the period 16.11.1997 - 1.6.1998 but had not paid any service tax thereon under the Finance Act, 1994. They had not filed any service tax return either. The department issued a show-cause notice on 27.12.2000 for recovery of service tax of Rs. 1,26,663/- with interest, under Section 73 r/w Section 71A of the Finance Act for the above period. The original authority dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner in his revisional jurisdictional set aside the order of the original authority and demanded the above service tax from the assessee. Hence the present appeal of the assessee.3. As rightly submitted by learned consultant for the assessee, the issue is already covered in their favour by the apex court's d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(158)ELT734TriDel
1. Facts of the case in the two appeals are somewhat similar and hence, we are disposing of the two appeals together.3. The appellants are challenging the recovery of interest, which has been ordered to be recovered from them, in terms of order passed by the lower authorities. The facts of the case are that the appellants have taken Modvat credit in respect of HSD oil used in the factory. In terms of the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the credit amount was denied to them and recovery of appropriate interest was also ordered. The said recovery was ordered in terms of provisions contained in Section 112(2) of the Finance Act, 2000. The said Section 112(2) was incorporated in the Finance Act to validate the denial of credit of duty paid on High Speed Diesel oil and also to disallow such credit to be utilised for payment of any kind of duty on any excisable goods from 16-3-1995 till 12-5-2000 (date of President's Assent to Finance Act, 2000). The appellants had ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom23
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under Section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assesses who was liable to have his excess profits taxassessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund provided by Section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by Section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT3(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the Constitutional validity of S. 52 of the Finance Act of 1982, and the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82 [GSR 77(E)/82], dated 23-2-1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain moneys which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in Art. 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in the Notification No. 22/82 [(GSR 77(E)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational and discriminatory. 3. For appreciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(MP)555
ORDERA.K. Patnak C.J.This is an appeal against the order dated 20-11-1995 passed by the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in Appeal No. IT(SS)A 84/Ind/1996 for the block year 1994-95 to 20-11-1995.2. The facts briefly are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On 21-11-1995, the business premises of the assessee were searched and pursuant to a notice, the assessee filed an original return on 2-7-1996 disclosing nil income for the block period assessment year 1994-95 to 20-11-1995. Thereafter, he filed a revised return showing the income at Rs. 30,50,000 on 26-11-1996. The Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Indore assessed the income at Rs. 30,50,000 on 29-11-1996 under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal on 30-12-1996 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short the Tribunal) under section 253 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. On the above writ petition, we had granted Rule on 22nd February, 2016 and directed that it be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2015. 2. Rule on interim relief in the writ petition was made returnable on 21st March, 2016 and after both sides consented, we indicted to them that the writ petition itself will be disposed of finally at the stage of interim relief. Hence, by consent of both sides, we heard the matters and are disposing them of finally by this judgment. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order-in-original dated 28th November, 2014 passed by respondent no. 2. 4. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The first respondent is Union of India and the second respondent is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nagpur. The petitioner is holding Service Tax Registration No. AACCD1376KST001 under the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]173ITR126(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion :' For assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 : At the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is legal and proper to reduce the rebate of super-tax at 7.5% on the whole of the amount of the dividend other than the dividend on preference shares having regard to the relevant provisions of the Finance Acts, 1964 and 1965, as the case may be ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the whole or a part, as the case may be, of the salary paid by the assessee to Smt. Taramani Mandelia, Smt. Damayanti Buch and Smt. Perry in the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)(98)ECC129
1. There is a delay of 17 days in the filing of the captioned appeal of the Revenue. After considering the appellants' explanation and noting that the respondents have no serious objection, I condone this delay and, with the consent of both sides, take up the appeal for hearing and disposal.2. Ld. DR has given an account of the facts of the case and has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. Ld. Consultant for the respondents has argued in defence of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal), banking on Final Order No. 930-931/2004 dated 20.10.2004 passed by this Bench in the cases of EID Parry Confectionary Ltd. and EID Parry (India) Ltd. [Appeal Nos. S/22 & 39/2004].3. The Revenue's appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vacating interest on service tax as well as penalty on the assessee. The assessee (respondents) had received goods transport service during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 but did not pay tax in respect thereof. However, the tax was pai...
Tag this Judgment!