COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

194 under Section 4A read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the aforesaid demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in original dated 13.02.2002, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent. Next level appeal filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Bangalore, however, yielded

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

68,402/- proposed in SCN for period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008 (Impugned Order at pg. 22 of Paperbook Vol I) OIO confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,56,05,193/- for the period April Category III Business Auxiliary Services: Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 – marketing and distributing (Impugned Order at pg. 20 of Paperbook

SANDVIK ASIA LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

68,88,220/- and tax thereon at Rs.1,47,88,521. The appellant on 30.04.1986 received a refund of Rs.42,38,260/- and became entitled to receive interest on the refund and requested respondent No.2 to grant interest on refund under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act for the period from 01.4.1977 to 31.03.1986. Assessment Year

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

194/- 2. Tiger Global International III Holdings, Mauritius 1,422,897 USD 181,782,633.10 equivalent to INR Rs.1259,75,36,473.83 3. Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius 66,026 USD 8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Processing & Hence A Substantial Increase In The Value Of These Inputs Has Escaped Payment Of Duty On Account Of Value Addition In Such Inputs After Processing. More Specifically, What Was Alleged Was That Various Spare Parts Relatable To Motor Vehicles That Were Manufactured By The Appellant & Were Procured By It In The Form Of Bumpers, Grills, Etc., On Which The Process Of Electro Deposition Coating, Namely, Edc Took Place (Which Was In The Nature Of Anti-Rust So That The Shelf Life Of The Said Bumpers, Grills, Etc., Would Be Generally Increased) Have Escaped Duty On

68,07,499/- and proceeded also to impose an equivalent penalty of the same amount with the caveat that 25 per cent of the penalty amount would be payable if it is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the order. The appeal filed before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Page