M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

11. As observed hereinabove, in many places under the Finance Act, 1994, the Parliament/Legislature has used the word “person” (Sections 68

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

Section 65(68) to be attracted. 11. These submissions have been controverted by Mr N Venkataraman, Additional Solicitor General

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68 are CIT v. Divine Leasing & Financing Ltd.14, and CIT v. Value Capital Service (P.) Ltd.15 11. The principles

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

11. After the passing of the order by the Tribunal, respondent filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal praying for a direction upon Customs Authorities to refund the amount deposited. Tribunal by its order dated 1st of November, 2002 directed the Revenue Authorities to refund the amount of duty inter alia in order to avoid uncalled for interest liability

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

11 aside the order of the Commissioner and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Commissioner was directed to look into the new facts and documents brought on record by the appellant and thereafter decide the case de novo in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 17. Following the remand, a fresh adjudication order

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

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

11. Clause (g) of sub-section 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, provides for the definition of taxable services rendered by a consulting engineer to mean \021any service provided to a client by consulting engineer in relation to advice, consultancy or technical service in any manner to client in one or more disciplines

ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MAHARASHTRA

68,66,092/- and a penalty amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- upon Amarship Management Limited in respect of show cause notice dated 12.5.1994. Commissioner of Customs of his Orders dated 28.11.1997 and 27.1.1998 ordered confiscation of the goods and levied duty of Rs. 4,95,406/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon Essar Oil Limited and duty

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 10 (23C) (vi) alludes to business and profits (‘being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives and separate books of account are maintained by it in respect of such business’). The interpretation of Section 10 (23C) therefore, is that the trust or educational institution must solely exist

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

68 cannot said to have been excluded for regular assessments." [ Emphasis supplied ] Sections 132 to 132B of the Act embody an integrated scheme laying down the procedure comprehensively for search and seizure and the power of the authorities making the search and seizure to order the confiscation of the assets seized. Section 132A gives power to the authorities

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

11. In the judgments referred to by counsel for the respondents, it is held that scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 of the CGST Act is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on subject matter, whereas the latter deals with power to issue summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

68   of   the   1961   Act,   as   stated   in   the assessment   order.     Indisputably,   the   Officer   gave   several opportunities to the appellant/assessee to prove the authenticity of the entries in question.  As a matter of fact, summon notices were   issued   to   the   named   fifteen   creditors,   but   no evidence/explanation was forthcoming.   The finding of fact so recorded by the Officer is unexceptionable

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

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly established. CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short levy

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11. In A. Ramaiya's The Companies Act (11th edn. 1988) it has been noticed at page 1320 that Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been largely recast and amended in the light of the following recommendations (excerpted) of the Company Law Committee in paragraph 218 of their Report: xx xx xx In this connection we should

D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

11-A [(sic); Section 28] of the Act, and that after 14 years petitions cannot be asked to face the adjudication process. This is how the petitioners pressed for the decision on merits.” 19) It shows that High Court was not oblivious of Section 28 of the Act and that determination of such an issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section 143(1) and accepted it. Subsequently, the A.O. rectified the alleged mistake and charged interest under Section 234B of `1,10,67,561/-. The A.O. further charged interest under Section 234C of `40,18,170/-. This levy