THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

section may sometimes contain matter which is in substance a fresh enactment adding and not merely qualifying that which goes before. Rhondda Urban Council v. Taff Vale Railway (2). It was argued on behalf of the Revenue that this (1) [1946] A.C. 32, 37. (2) [1909] A.C. 253, 258. 262 proviso falls in the second category and takes the present

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowance for the non-qualifying services, after taking into consideration the totality of agreement, so that the balance of the royalty/fees, etc., which was for the services covered by Section 80-O, could be exempted. This Circular also clarified that trade enquires will not qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as also technical services rendered in India

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

2.  The relevant Rule reads as follows: “57­F.   (4­A)   Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­rule (4), or   sub­rule   (1)   of   Rule   57­A   and the   notifications   issued thereunder, any credit of specified duty   lying   unutilised   on   the   16th day   of   March,   1995   with   a manufacturer   of   tractors,   falling under   Heading   No.   87.01   or   motor vehicles falling  under  Heading

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

disallowing the benefit of the notification to the Defibrillator thereby concurring with the view of the Technical Member. 11) This is how the matter has come up to this court in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 L(b) of the Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 7 of 19 Page

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD. HUMBLI

section 35-L(b) of the Act. By judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. M/s Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos.3792-3803 of 2000], this Court has partly allowed the department’s appeal. However, the order of remand on the question of "related person" during the period 4/91 to 3/93