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

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

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

68,593/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 Category III Business Auxiliary Services (marketing and distributing): Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 Category II Management, maintenance or repair services : Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activity of identifying new prospective customers

M/S. O.N.G.C. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

182 of notification no. 20/99-Cus dated 28.2.1999 (since rescinded), is not available on the data tapes imported by M/s ONGC vide Bills of Entry Nos. 9888 dt. 22.6.99 and No. 12443 dt. 28.5.99. I, therefore, confirm the duty demand of Rs. 49,68,70,160 on M/s ONGC. Since an amount of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- had already been

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

182) ELT 336 (Tri.- Mumbai) (hereinafter referred to as “Thermax CESTAT” ) is erroneous because in case of Thermax CESTAT (supra), when the order was challenged before this Court in M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. v. Commnr. of Central Excise, Pune in Civil Appeal No(s). 3042-3043/2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Thermax SC”), the learned Civil Appeal

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

182-186, Pg. 297-308). 12.7. In the year 2000, Indian tax authorities denied the benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA to certain Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) on the ground that their beneficial ownership was outside both India and Mauritius. This resulted in capital outflows from India, diplomatic friction with Mauritius, and concerns over the stability of foreign