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

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

Sections 66 and 68 : The chargeability : The taxable event: 19. Section 66 is the charging section. Under

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

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

66 was on the value of taxable services as enumerated in Section 65(105). The measure of the tax is found located in Section 67. The person liable to pay the tax is governed by Section 68

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

68 is a machinery section in that it provides for the incidence of taxation and is not the charging section which is Section 66

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

66 recovery, and offences and penalties, etc. These proceedings are subsequent to inquiry under section 70 of the Act. The words "in any inquiry" used in section 70 of the Act is referable to the provisions of Chapter XIV, i. e., section 67 (power of inspection, search and seizure), section 68

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

66 Section 20 of the GMB Act 39 minor ports in the State of Gujarat, and for all matters connected therewith. The Board’s powers under the GMB Act apply to works carried out by GMB as conservator of ports under the provisions of the Indian Ports Act67; it is charged with essential functions such as development and upkeep

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

68 (1) of the Finance Act provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

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

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketability as understood in the excise law. Whether an article is permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth requires determination of both the intention as well

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

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

M/S NAGARMAL BAIJNATH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

66(1). The only question urged by the appellant before the High Court was: inasmuch as the firm stood dissolved prior to the date the orders of assessment relating to the said two assessment years were made, the orders of assessment are void. It was urged that Section 44 of the Act did not authorise the Revenue to make

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

66,690 iii Investent in Durgadabail building at Hubli as per para 5 being 50% of Rs. 5,24,200/- Rs. 2,62,100 iv Unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C Rs. 8,33,525 The assessment for the years 1981-82 was completed after making an addition of Rs.19,93,117/-. Assessing Authority made an assessment for the construction

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

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

66 – provided for levy of Service Tax on value of taxable services. Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 14 of 29 (b) Section 66A – provided for levy of Service Tax on taxable services provided from outside India and received by a person in India under the reverse charge mechanism. (c) Various sub-Sections of Section

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

section and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in the notification: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5 Provided that the Central Government may specify the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, "inputs" includes- (a) inputs

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

66 24 of the Act. Section 24(3) provided for interest. It read as follows: “(3) On any amount remaining unpaid after the date specified for its payment as referred to in sub-section (1) or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay, in addition to the amount due, interest

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

66. By   Final   Order   Nos.   1505­1508   dated   07.12.2010,   the CESTAT allowed all the four appeals and remanded the matter for re­quantification of duty liability and penal liability in light of the findings given. 67. The findings recorded and the reasons therefor, as given by CESTAT, are as follows:­ I. That retraction by the witnesses of their statements at a belated

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

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

The appeal is allowed

66. Section 271(1)(c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the legislature that it is meant to be deterrent to tax evasion is evidenced by the increase in the quantum of penalty, from 20% under

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

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

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part but

66] Before us, the constitutionality of Section 11A as amended in the year 2000 has not been questioned. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22 Cotspun (supra) was decided when the matters relating to classification, approval thereof as also short-levy or upon detection of a mistake were governed by the rules. Rule 10 and Rule

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

section. In interpreting the provision the exercise undertaken by the court is to make explicit the intention of the legislature which enacted the legislation. It is not for the court to reframe the legislation for the very good reason that the powers to \021legislate\022 have not been conferred on the court. 65. In Gwalior Rayons Silk