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

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

4A is not relevant to this present matter before us). 44. Thus, it is necessary to first examine whether the resultant product that emerges at the buyer’s site by assembling the parts brought in CKD condition along with the bought out items, qualifies as an “excisable good” under the Act, 1944. Only if such product which emerges

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

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted in terms of clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

68,742/- as claimed by the assessee while arriving at the total income of Rs. 57,18,040/. (d) Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2004 while holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of export incentives under Section 80HHC at par with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

4A) of that section; (ix) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHE, computed under sub-section (3) of that section. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

68,546 1992-93 61,39,448 16,53,560 64,30,765 1993-94 7,21,192 NIL 7,21,192 1994-95 65,145 NIL 65,192 1995-96 3,99,023 1,32,333 3,99,023 Total 1,57,77,630 24,36,352 1,60,66,947” 5. Section

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

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 results favourable

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 @12% adv. creating them as 'Cosmetic or Toilet preparations'. Accordingly, show cause notices as under were issued to the assessees. Sr. No. O.R. No. Period Duty 1 O.R. No. 21/2013- Adjn (Commr) CE dt. 31.1.2013 OC No. 33/2013 (GGP/S-II) April’ 2012 to Sept’ 2012 Rs. 73,71,267/- 2 O.R. No. 170/2013- Adjn

HINDUSTAN POLES CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

Appeals are allowed and show cause

68 has been dispensed with and instead residuary items have been provided http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10 separately for each class of goods under each Chapter. (g) Interpretative rules have also been provided to serve as statutory guideline for interpreting the Tariff Schedule. (h) To preserve by and large the existing duty structure

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

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

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A Characteris tic Limit as per IS 1460:200 5 and amended Acidity. Inorganic Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Acidity, total mg of KOH/g To report 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Ash percent by mass