ARAVINDA PARAMILA WORKS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we uphold the view taken by the

Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Courts have taken divergent views. We are concerned with the Assessment Year 1981-82. The assessee manufactured agarbathis. It had exported agarbathis during the year under consideration. It had paid commission to agents outside India who had procured orders. It claimed weighted deduction under the afore-mentioned

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTFA vs. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD

b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called ’the Act’). The appeal by the appellant before the tribunal was dismissed on the ground that provisions of rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 had not been complied with. The documents which are to accompany the memorandum of appeal are prescribed

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process