Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai v. M. Ambalal and 3 JUDGMENT Company

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

…A there was no statutory right to claim payment of interest on delayed under the Act and it is only after the insertion this statutory provision was incorporated in the statute. Thus, a 22 (2011) 2 SCC 74 CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 27 of 50 combined reading of Section 27(1)and (2) and the explanation in Section 27A manifest that any person claiming refund of the duty or interest paid by him or payment by him is required to make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the authority whi…

Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

…ie before the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is trite that 32 the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority pertains to its appellate jurisdiction. (See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [(1969) 2 SCC 74 : AIR 1970 SC 1] .) 28. Before, however, adverting to the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee herein, we may consider the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to issue notice in terms of Section 263 of the Act. It provides for a revisional power. It has its own limitations. An order can be interfered with suo motu by…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11 (1) Bangalore vs. M/S Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

…they relate to two different sets of circumstances.” 20. In State of Jharkhand versus Ambay Cements5, the question was whether exemption for newly set up industrial units was applicable to the assessee therein. The High Court having 4 (2011) 2 SCC 74 5 (2005) 1 SCC 368 24 allowed the benefit even though the assessee did not qualify for the same, this Court reversed the view of the High Court and held that the conditions for grant of exemption from tax are mandatory and in absence thereof exemption could not be granted. Distinguishing the judgments of this Court in Bajaj Tempo…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

…” should be construed widely.” 31. Moreover, a liberal construction requires to be given to a beneficial notification. This Court in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai v. M. Ambalal and 3 JUDGMENT Company, (2011) 2 SCC 74, (in which one of us was the party) has observed that the beneficial notification providing the levy of duty at a concessional rate should be given a liberal interpretation: “16. It is settled law that the notifica- tion has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notifica- tion is not fulfilled, the party is not…

Commnr. of Customs(Import) vs. M/S. Konkan Synthetic Fibres

Bench: The Customs Authorities, Inter Alia, Seeking Clearance Of The Same By Extending The Benefit Of The Notification No.17/01-Cus Dated 1.3.2001, As Amended By Notification No.44/01- Cus, Dated 26.04.2001. The Customs Authorities Had Refused To Accept The Request Of The Assessee & Accordingly, Had Directed The Assessee To Pay The Duty Under The Provisions Of The Customs Act, 1962 (“The Act” For Short).

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.951 OF 2004 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI. APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.KONKAN SYNTHETIC FIBRES RESPONDENT O R D E R 1.This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT'), Mumbai in Appeal No.C/43/02- Mumbai, dated 04.09.2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the CESTAT has granted relief to the assessee by giving a liberal interpretation to the beneficial Notification No.17/01-Cus dated 1…

M/S. Gammon India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Mumbai

…g to the allegation of pick and choose policy adopted by the revenue, learned counsel urged that non-filing of an appeal in a similar case does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case. In support, learned counsel 5 (2011) 2 SCC 74: 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) 6 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 9 commended us to the decision of this Court in C.K. Gangadharan & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin7. It was thus, assert- ed that the decision of the Tribunal did not warrant any interference and the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 12. The short question for determination is whe…