M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

11A and direct the assessee to pay the same forthwith. (a) Rs. 13,43,046/- towards duty involved on replaced goods cleared between March 1997 to March 2001. (b) Rs. 14,27,483/- towards duty computed for the period of March 1997 to March, 2001 on volume discount. (c) Rs, 11,96,601/- towards duty computed for the period

M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of in

disallowed and why the charges on account of freight, interest on freight, rebate, octroi and interest on receivables should not be included in the assessable value and also why the cost of C.F.C. packing charged and realized by them from the buyers should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4(1) (a) and Section

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.75,81,910/- towards deduction under Section 80 (B(3). The same was upheld by the Commissioner in appeal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in second appeal. However, the High Court has reversed the said orders and upheld the claim. 4. The relevant Section is as follows : 3 “80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,JAIPUR vs. M/S. J.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD

The appeals are allowed with

disallowed and recovered from him under the provisions of Rule 57AH read with section 11A of Central Excise Act and further

RAJA MECHANICAL CO.(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Appeal is dismissed on

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

disallowed and recovered under Rule 57G of the central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 11A

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S. B.P.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

disallowing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 dated 23.07.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 respectively to the appellant. 2) The appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 and 90. From January 1997 onwards the appellant had been manufacturing and clearing two Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 1 of 19 Page