GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

111°C Kinematic 40°C, cSI 2.0 to 4.5 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.1 4.0 4.0 Kinematic Viscosity 37.8°C - 4.3 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Distillation range, °C Percent v/v Recovered ot 360°C 95% volume recovered

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

House, Kandla (in short ’Commissioner’) confirmed the demand of duty and also directed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. It is to be noted that respondent no.1, inter alia, contended that there was no certainty that the rate of duty will be enhanced and that they acted under a bona fide belief that the funds would be available

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (d) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 (a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of Leela Ventures the show-cause notice dated 21st January, 1998/18th February 1998 valued the drawings and designs at Rs. 2,66,87,100/- being the transaction value and on that value

M/S GMR ENERGY LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,BANGALORE

111(m) of the Customs act, 1962, (g) Penalty under Section 112(a) and/94 Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed.” 5. The reply to the show cause notice sent by the assessee disputed all the allegations made and stated in particular as follows:- “H. VALUE DECLARED FOR INSURANCE IS THE Page 7 JUDGMENT 7 BEST

AKBAR BADRUDDIN JIWANI vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 rendering the said goods for confiscation, the importer is liable for penal action under provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 112 of the said Act was directed

KOTHARI FILAMENTS vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs

111(m) of the Act, 1962 and as to why the importers and their agents should not be punished in terms of Section 112(a) and (b) thereof. Cause was further directed to be shown as to why the appellants attempted evasion of custom duty amounting to Rs.38,16,729.40 resulting from mis-declaration of the imported goods 2 should

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking the common parlance test arises. 57. In Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd & Ors. v. Union

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

property right” in HEL? If not, the question of such a right getting “extinguished” will not arise. A legal right is an enforceable right. Enforceable by a legal process. The question is what is the nature of the “control” that a parent company has over its subsidiary. It is not suggested that a parent company never has control over

M/S. BANGALORE CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 2 (24) of the Act). The concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled by the group, for a common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue the common purpose is said to be simply an increase of the common fund and as such neither considered income