Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2003)(85)ECC807
1. M/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited, Torangallue (hereinafter referred to as 'JPOCL' OR' 'assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of gases and liquid Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon falling under Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As M/s JPOCL, a joint venture of M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited, Tornagailu (hereinafter referred to as "JVSL") and M/s Praxair Pacific Limited, Mauritius (hereinafter referred to as "PPL") a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Praxair Inc., USA. The joint venture formed in September 1995, commenced production from August 1998 is clearing about 95% of its production of Oxygen/Nitrogen/Argon in gaseous form to M/s JVSL The remaining 5% of the incidental production of liquid products are either cleared to M/s Praxair Pacific Ltd., Mauritius or used as back up stock for supply to JVSL. M/s JPOCL is alleged to be a dedicated plant for OJVSL.Chronological events regarding operation of JPOCL are given below: Praxair Inc. USA & JVSL entered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003]262ITR417(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The following two questions are referred to this Court for its opinion.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cine Agencies 54 ITD 257, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under section 32A of the I.T. Act ? 2. Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief u/s 80HHC for the assessment year under consideration in terms of Circular NO. 729 dated 1.11.1995 which is applicable only from the assessment year 1991-92 onwards?' The relevant assessment year is 1988-89.2. The facts as stated in the Statement of Case are as follows:-The assessee is a company doing business of mining and quarrying of granite stones and exporting them as finished goods to various countries. Before exporting these granite stones as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Ker)182; [2003]261ITR721(Ker)
P. R. Raman, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the Revenue. The following question is referred for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and when the assessee did not make a claim or a request for allowance of depreciation, whether the Assessing Officer would be justified in allowing the deduction ?'2. In Income-tax Reference No. 21 of 1999, for the year 1989-90, the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 9,30,59,275. In computing the loss, the Assessing Officer held that whether the assessee had claimed it or not depreciation was to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act and accordingly, he computed the depreciation allowance at Rs. 2,02,79,334 and carried forward the same to be set off against the income of the subsequent years/This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In further appeal, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in allowing deduction by way of deprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]129TAXMAN549(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.These two references are at the instance of the revenue. The following question is referred for the decision of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and when the assessee did not make a claim or a request for allowance of depreciation. Whether the assessing officer would be justified in allowing the deduction?'2. In ITR No. 21 of 1999 for the year 1989-90 the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 9,30,59,275. In computing the loss, the assessing officer held that whether the assessee had claimed it or not depreciation was to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, he computed the depreciation allowance at Rs. 2,02,79,334 and carried forward the same to be set off against the income of the subsequent years. This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer was not justified in allowing deduction by way of depreciation when the assessee h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4219; 2003(5)ALD125(SC); 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1127; 2003(3)ARBLR1(SC); (2003)4CompLJ305(SC); 2003(3)CTC568; 105(2003)DLT915(SC); 2004(1)MhLj1081; (2003)3MLJ159(SC); 200
Dharmadhikari J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Leave to appeal, as prayed for, is granted.2. The appellant Hythro Power Corporation Limited has approached this Court aggrieved by rejection of its application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Concillation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The learned judge of the Delhi High Court acting as designate or nominee of the Chief Justice, in exercise of his powers under section 11 of the Act, by his order dated 7.12.2000 came to the conclusion that no agreement in writing having been executed by the parties with an arbitration clause, the prayer made by the appellant for seeking a reference of the disputes raised to arbitral Tribunal has to be rejected.3. Aggrieved by refusal of the learned judge of the Delhi High Court to make a reference to the arbitration, the appellant-Corporation filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(91)ECC583; 2004(163)ELT10(Kar); 2004(1)KarLJ259
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Grasim Industries Limited, Unit ; Rajashree Cement, is seeking to quash the Circular dated 31-3-2003 in No. 704/20/2003 issued by the first respondent in terms of Annexure-B and to direct the second respondent and his officers to permit the petitioner to avail back the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,41,965.00/- on the stock of light diesel oil ('LDO' for short) as on 28-2-2003.2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement at its plant located at Adityanagar, Malkhed Road, Gulbarga District. Petitioner is having thermal power plant and diesel generating sets. In the diesel generating sets, petitioner is using LDO. Petitioner has been availing credit on the said LDO as an input under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Petitioner was availing credit on the said LDO as an eligible input. Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules ('the Rules') amended to exclude LDO as an input and in Explanation (1), LDO has been included in terms of Notification No. 13/2003 date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR279; (2008)11VST267(Karn)
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee under Section 15-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The assessment year is 1992-93.2. Brief facts which are germane for disposal of the revision petition can be stated as under;The Petitioner is a limited company manufacturing, among others, air-conditioners and refrigerators in various States in India and the countrywide marketing network with branches including one at Bangalore. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short CST Act), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short KST Act) and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short KTEG Act). The petitioner's branch at Bangalore is engaged in selling its manufactured goods. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed its return under the KTEG Act declaring the value of goods arrived at by taking the amount shown in the stock transfer invoice issued by the manufacturing unit which represe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1338
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.10.2003/12.11.2003 (Annexure 'I') of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioners' appeal and confirming the order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure 'G') of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and holding that the additional duty of customs is payable by the petitioner-unit.2. Petitioner No.1 is a unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The petitioner-unit manufactures regenerated polymers out of scrap or waste of goods falling within various Chapters including Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. Ordinarily, the units permitted to be set up in Kandla Special Economic Zone like the other Special Economic Zones in the country are to import raw materials without payment of customs duty, then manufacture finished products out of the raw material and export them out of the country. Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2025; [2004]136STC292(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These two appeals arc filed under Section 16(1) of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979 ('Act' for short) against the order dated 31-01-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore in SMR/KTEG/2O-BD/2000-01/1420-2000-2001 passed in exercise of suo moto revision power under Section 15(2) of the Act, in regard to 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. The Appellant is a manufacturer of non-ferrous metal (copper/ brass) Rods and wires. The appellant purchases non-ferrous metal scrap from outside the State and causes their entry into local area for being used in the manufacture of rods and wires. For the assessment year 1995-96, the appellant filed a return disclosing the entry of non-ferrous metal scrap of the value of Rs. 1,73,93,625/- and paid entry tax at the rate of 1% under the Act in regard to the said value. In regard to assessment year 1996-97, the appellant filed a return disclosing the entry of non-ferrous metal scrap of the value of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3457; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)804; (2004)98CALLT411(SC); 98(2004)CLT411(SC); [2006(3)JCR97(SC)]; 2004(6)SCALE51; (2004)7SCC437
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. The proceedings of these appeals before this Court arise out of the Revenue Miscellaneous Cases No. 150 to 156 of 1976 filed by the appellants separately against the separate respondents under the provisions of Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956 before the Project Administrator, I.T.D.A., Parlakhemundie and. Addl.District Magistrate, Ganjam in the State of Orissa. The cases were filed by the appellants who belong to Scheduled Tribe of Khariaguda village in Gumma block whereas the respondents who have been impleaded as opposite parties in different cases are Pano Christians of Asharyaguda village. It appears that the land in dispute falls in village Khariaguda which is a scheduled area under the provisions of the Regulation No. 2 of 1956. The claim of the appellants who filed different cases is that the land belongs to them but it has been forcibly occupied by the respondents. The cases were decided in favour of the appellants with a direction for restoration of suit la...
Tag this Judgment!