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

220 was misplaced. This Court purported to follow the decision in V.V.S. Sugars vs. Govt. of A.P. and 61 Others 1999(4) SCC 192 (India Carbon vs. VBS Sugar). The last judgment we would advert to under the Income Tax Act was rendered by one among us (Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi) and the decision is P.G. & W. Sawoo

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

Section 80HHC(3) in his returns filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The assessee did not include processing charges (receipts) in his total turnover. In his return, he indicated his business profits at Rs.1,94,08,220. The figure of Rs.1,94,08,220 included the processing charges (receipts) amounting to Rs.1,54,68

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,702 (-)6,16,78,845 (-)84,90,900 4,58,78,816 212 Mahagun Mosaic (-)5,21,92,597 11,93,15,012 6,71,22,415 Total difference 3,82,17,922 2,41,030,598 2,09,41,932 35,58,412 12,60,57,575 42,98,06,439 7.6 The reply filed by the assessee

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

68 to 80 eggs in a year, whereas by employing modern scientific methods assessee produces about 280 eggs in a year and is capable of producing 220 to 230 chicks in a year through artificial incubation. For the larger growth of eggs and chicks, it is necessary that incubation has to be mechanical as the broody hens are now virtually

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

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

220-Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 006 1 Land Area as per records 5250 sq. yds. = 4389.63 sq. mt. 2 Land rate adopted @ Rs.12842/- sq. mt. (897/- x 1.33 x 10.764) 3 Consideration of land component Rs.5,63,71,628 (A) 4 Built-up Area existing as on 1-4.81 (Gr.+I upper floor bungalow structures

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

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

68 of 161 he was a Customs officer under the Customs Act. In addition, that he was entrusted with the functions of the proper officer under Section 6 of the Customs Act. The Additional Director General of the DRI can be considered to be a Customs officer only if he is shown to have been appointed as Customs officer

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

220, 236]. Learned Solicitor General emphatically submitted that in the case of PUCL(supra), equating the right of a voter to exercise his right of franchise to a fundamental right of speech and expression, is clearly in contradiction to the various decisions of equal and larger benches of this court where such a right of voter is only recognised

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

220. 17 by   both   the   counsel.   In   his   treatise,   ‘Principles   of Statutory Interpretation’ Justice G.P. Singh, lucidly pointed the importance of construction of statutes in a modern State as under: “Legislation   in   modern   State   is actuated   with   some   policy   to   curb some public evil or to effectuate some public   benefit.     The   legislation   is primarily   directed   to   the   problems before

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then

THE PEERLESS GEN.FIN AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 45 J & 45 K of the Reserve Bank of India Act, as a result of which directions were issued by the RBI dated 15.05.1987. These directions, in turn, were the subject matter of challenge by the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited (supra) i.e. the second Peerless case. The aforesaid directions are set out in full

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG vs. WOODCRAFT PRODUCTS LIMITED, CALCUTTA

The appeals of the revenue are allowed while the appeals and SLPs of the manufacturers arc

68 was introduced. Thus, barring a few Items like opium, alcohol, etc., all other manufactured goods now come under the scope of this levy. 2.The Technical Study Group on Central Excise Tariff, which was set up by the Government in 1984 to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the structure of the central excise tariff has suggested the adoption