COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

6 of the Act, 1962 is mandatory to empower the Officers of the DRI for the purpose of issuing show cause notices? c. Whether the power under Section 28 can be exercised only by someone who is empowered to exercise the power under Section Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6 SCC 714 34 be regarded as trade or business. Reliance was placed upon State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturer’s Organisation52. 51. It was submitted that in the absence of profit motive, the activity is not trade, commerce or business - within the meaning of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Reliance

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

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

11 repealed   and  upon   such   repeal,   Section   6   of   the   General Clauses   Act,   1897,   shall   apply   as   if   the   said   Part   were   a Central Act; (2)     Notwithstanding   the   repeal   made   by   sub­section   (1)   but without prejudice to the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, any notification, order, direction, appointment or declaration made

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

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

68 of the Finance Act, 1994 demanding the service tax along with interest under Section 75 and for imposition of penalty under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2007 confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.10,42,71,437/- and ordered

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

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

6 (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, 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.

11:13:42 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CA 3532-36/2020 2 2. The appellant is engaged in providing diversified sports, entertainment and media services. It is registered with the jurisdictional service tax authorities under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for taxable event categories such as management consultant services, event management services, business auxiliary services, business exhibition

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6. Bayanwala Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 95,00,000 7. Super Finance Ltd. 90,00,000 8. Shivalaxmi Export Ltd. 95,00,000 9. Natraj Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 95,00,000 10. Neelkanth Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 95,00,000 11. Prominent Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 95,00,000 (C) Guwahati based companies 1. Ispat Sheets Ltd. 90,00,000 2. Novelty Traders

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

6. It may be mentioned here that the respondent had obtained a registration certificate from the concerned Central Excise Authorities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules (for short, \021the Rules\022) in order to sell SKO to dealers/customers who required an invoice for Modvat purposes. In the said registration certificate, it was clearly mentioned that SKO would

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

6 of imported goods were kept outside the bond under a shed as the trailers transporting the goods could not enter the notified warehouse in view of the soil becoming very sluggish on account of heavy rains and also because of paucity of space. The Collector, therefore, opined that the appellant had removed the 264 cases of warehoused goods valued

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

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

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

6 a club or association and the issuing bank is a member of such club or association. Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-clause, an issuing bank and the owner of trade marks or brand name shall be treated as separate persons;” [Section 65(33a) of the Act] 11. Still, I may also notice that Section

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

6 SCC 479, this Court held:- “11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes no reference to interest

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

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

6. …But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity: Vide Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v Andhra Chamber of Commerce

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

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

11. It is pointed out that Section 17(5)(c) carves out an exception only for works contracts, assuming that this is the only category of service where there is no breakage in the chain of taxable supplies. It is submitted that while Section 17(5)(c) allows ITC on works contracts for contractors, ITC has been blocked

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