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 : [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!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004]135STC385(Jharkh)
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated June 30, 2000 (annexure 16) and July 1, 2000 (annexure 17) passed by respondent No. 3, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur (hereinafter called as 'JCCT') pursuant to the direction dated January 6, 2000 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3248 of 1999(R) whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the sales tax of the year 1996-97 has been disallowed and for the year 1997-98 the petitioner was allowed to avail of the tax-free purchase of raw materials in the form of hot rolled coil for the production of 8588 MT of CRM product over and above the 2/3rd incremental capacity of 60,000 MT fixed under S.O. No. 478 on proportional basis which works out to 9889 MT only and also a direction was made therein that the refund of the tax paid on purchase of raw materials...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 08.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.11427 of 2006.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, setting aside a demand for payment of Service Tax. 2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Department and Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. The respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of GRP pipes. Upon perusal of the accounts of the respondent/assessee, the Department noticed that the assessee received an amount of Rs.5,19,45,145/- towards labour charges for installation and commissioning of GRP Pipes for various customers during the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.10.2004. Therefore, a show cause notice, dated 30.05.2005, was issued on the ground that they are liable to pay service tax on the value of the service rendered by them under the category of "Erection, Commissioning or Instal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(119)LC192Tri(Chennai)
1. Ld. DR for the Revenue (appellant) 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 (Appeals), banking on Final Order No.930-931/2004 dated 20.10.2004 passed by this Bench in the cases of M/s.EID Parry Confectionery Ltd. and M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., (Appeal Nos. S/22 8b 39/2004) : 2004 (117) ECR 670 (T).2. 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 6.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 but did not pay tax in respect thereof. However, the tax was paid later on, prior to issuance of the relevant show-cause notice. This payment was not under protest.The show-cause notice dated 2.1.2003, which also proposed to levy interest on tax and to impose penalty on the assessee, came to be ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(Ori)222; [1993]199ITR761(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions to this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the total income on which deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be computed must be calculated before deducting relief allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) ?' 2. The background facts as culled out from the statement of the case are to the following effect : M/s. Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since both sides agree that these Appeals involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Central Excise Appeal No.214/ 2013 are referred to. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT) dated 07.03.2013 in which it has been held that for the period upto 27.02.2010 the Appellants before us are not eligible for refund. 3. The Appeal is ADMITTED on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that onsite work undertaken at customers premises of the Appellants does not fulfil the requirement of Service Provided from India contained in first leg of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. (b) Whether the CESTAT...
Tag this Judgment!