Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 2012 central chapter iii direct taxes Sorted by: recent Court: kolkata appellate Page 2 of about 39 results (0.092 seconds)

M/S. State Bank of India, Bartolla Street Branch Vs. Commissioner of S ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... . misra, j. 1. this is an application seeking waiver of predeposit of an amount of rs.5.98 lakh and equal amount of penalty imposed under section 78 of the finance act, 1994. 2. at the outset, ld. advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a public sector bank and availed cenvat credit on the input services used for exempted .....

M/S. Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Vs. Commissio ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of rs.50.14 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under section 78 and penalty under other provisions of the finance act, 1994. 2. at the outset shri rohit ranjan sinha, ld. advocate submits that the applicants are state govt. undertaking and engaged in supply of sugar and foodgrains under public distribution .....

M/S. Utpal Chetia Proprietor- Utpal Chetia Vs. Commissioner of Central ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... he had not given any finding on this aspect. it is the contention that according to sub-clause (zr) of clause 105 of section 65 of chapter v of the finance act, 1994 (as amended), in relation to cargo handling service, reads as follows:- taxable service? means any service provided or to be provided to any person by a cargo handling agency .....

M/S. Karunko, Jamshedpur Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Servic ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... tax of rs.1,37,629/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under section 78 of the finance act, 1994. 2. at the outset, ld. advocate for the applicant submits that the ld. commissioner (appeals) has dismissed their appeal under section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of the entire amount of service tax. the ..... /documents placed by the appellant. we find that the ld. commissioner (appeals) had not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal before him under section 35f of the central excise act, 1944. prima facie, we find that the applicant could able to produce some challans, whereby it indicates that the goods were received for processing and then, returned to the .....

M/S. Ashima Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshe ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... with the provisions of section 35f of central excise act,1944, as applicable to service tax cases by virtue of section 83 of the finance act, 1994. he, however, makes a fair offer to deposit 25% of the total service tax involved in the cases, and prayed that ..... . these three stay applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of total service tax of rs.3,37,759/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under section 78 of the finance act, 1994. 2. at the outset, ld. advocate for the applicant submitted that the ld. commissioner (appeals) has not decided their appeals on merits, but dismissed the same for non-compliance .....

Dr. Animesh Baruah and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... further observed that adjudicating commissioner has not imposed any separate penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994. composite penalty under different provisions of the statute is impermissible as held by this tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, coimbatore vs. precot mills ltd. 2007 (212) elt 483 (tri.-chennai). 6. accordingly after ..... and by the impugned order dated 01.04.2011 the ld.adjudicating commissioner imposed penalty of equal amount under section 78 read with section 76 and 77 of the finance act, 1994. aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the appeal to this tribunal. 3. it is the contention of the ld.advocate appearing for the ..... honble supreme court has passed an interim order. in view of these various judgments board vide its mf (dr)-do letter no.f.no.334/1/2012-tru dated 16.03.2012 it was instructed that in view of the above developments, it is proposed that penalty may be waived for those tax payers who pay the service .....

M/S. First Flight Courier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

dr. d.m. misra, j. 1. vide order dated 23.10.2013 this tribunal has directed to the applicant to deposit entire amount of service tax, interest and penalty within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 27.12.2013. the order was sent to the applicant on 25.10.2013. 2. today when the matter was called, nobody appeared for the applicant, nor any request for adjournment is made. 3. the ld.a.r. for the revenue submits that the applicant has failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit hence, the appeal is liable for dismissal for non-compliance. 4. we find that the applicant had not complied with the direction of pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax, penalty and interest vide order no.so/71288/2013 dated 23.10.2013. in these circumstances we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35f of central excise act as applicable to service tax matters by virtue of section 83 of finance act, 1994. appeal dismissed.

M/S. Hindusthan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

..... such conflicting orders on the part of the ld.commissioner(appeals), entrusted with the task of deciding of cases brought before him as first appellate authority, under the central excise act, 1944, would shake faith of the litigant-assessees on the system, and would sow the seeds of discontentment, hence, needs to be discouraged. we direct the ..... does not dispute that the facts and circumstances involved in the present case are similar to the one decided by this tribunal by its order dated 24.05.2012. following the said decision, we do not find merit in the impugned order passed by the ld.commissioner(appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand against the ..... submits that the ld.commissioner(appeals) who passed the present impugned order has dropped the proceeding against them vide order-in-appeal no.68/pat/cex/appeal/2012 dated 04.04.2012 for the period april 2005 to december, 2005. it is his submission that the same commissioner(appeals) on the same day passed two different orders, .....

Ms. Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Commerc ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... enforceable on manufacture of pan masala, chewing tobacco, guthka or other tobacco products as provided in the central excise tariff act (the 1985 act). prior to the enactment of finance act, 2001, pan masala containing tobacco was classified in the 1985 act under chapter 21 as pan masala. note 3 of chapter 21 defined pan masala as a preparation ..... 49. in the case before us, we are concerned with the assessment for the four quarters ending march 31, 2004 and thus, the amended provision of finance act, 2001 is applicable.7. therefore, in order to appreciate the question involved in this writapplication, it will be appropriate to refer to the following amended definition ..... was amended and by such amendment, pan masala, not containing tobacco, alone is assessable under tariff item no.2106. after the coming into operation of the finance act, 2001, pan masala, containing tobacco, was classified in chapter 24 as a tobacco product as stated in note-6 thereof and assessable under tariff heading 2404. .....

Enfield Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in : (2007)107ITD1(Kol.)

..... matter of fact, these two provisions i.e. sub-section (2) of section 158bfa and the explanation to section 271(1)(c) as inserted by the finance act, 1964, have nothing in common. most importantly, unlike the latter, there is no presumption for concealment in the former. so onus would lie heavily with the ..... papers in time), the assessee on its own volition approached the settlement commission, disclosing its true income, and subsequently, at the behest of the cit, central-i, kolkata, filed a disclosure petition before the department declaring the same income. as discussed earlier, clearly the assessee was prevented by circumstances beyond its control ..... no other alternative than to approach the settlement commission for a practical and judicious adjudication on the complex issues and for avoiding protracted litigation. the cit, central-i, kolkata, then suggested that the appellant-group could make a full and true disclosure of their income before the department itself, consequent on which .....