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

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

71,437/- which was not paid by the respondent. According to the Revenue, it also failed to obtain Service Tax Registration from the department. 2 2.1 A show cause notice dated 26.05.2006 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur to the respondent under Section 73 read with Sections 65, 66 and 68

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

Sections 68(2), 69(1), 71 and relevant parts of Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 which

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

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention

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

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

68 (inspection of goods in movement), section 69 (power to arrest), section 71 (access to business premises) and section

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

71;  (b) where any warehoused goods have not been removed from a warehouse at the expiration of the   period   during   which   such   goods   are permitted   under   section   61   to   remain   in   a warehouse;   *   *   *   *   *   (d) where any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed under section 59 and which have not been cleared for home consumption

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade). It was registered under Section 12AA

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. No doubt that the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is one   of   the   consequences   flowing   from   the   adjudgment   of confiscation.   Therefore, in view of the fiction under Section 116, Section   73   of   the   GOLD   ACT   would   have   been   applicable   if consequence of applying such fiction to the confiscations adjudged under the RULES

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

71 of the Financial Services Act, 2007 also requires a Global Business Licence holder to be managed and controlled from Mauritius, with the criteria being non- exhaustive. 7.8. Further, it was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that issuance of a TRC does not foreclose inquiry into actual control and management or application of “substance over form”. Treaty benefits

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

71. After   the   receipt   of   the   reply   from   the   assessee,   the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, held an enquiry and passed   an   Order­in­Original   No.   08/2007   dated   29.03.2007, wherein he (i) confirmed the demand of duty in a sum of Rs. 40,46,923 from the assessee under the proviso to Section 11A(1) 43 of the Act, (ii) directed

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68. We are quite befuddled by the answers given by the expert about flash point, as if he was not aware of the importance of flash point in petroleum products. He was Page 59 of 76 evasive as regards nonconformity on this parameter in determining whether the samples are those of HSD. Flash point has been mentioned in the Supplementary

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

68. Having regard to the memorandum and circular referred to above, it is by no means evident that the primary legislative object was to enact Section 44C solely for ‘common’ expenditure. In fact, the specific nature of the expenditure does not appear to be the focal point of the legislative concern. Rather, the concern was mainly with respect

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

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

Section 3 of the Act, 1944, an essential condition of which is that the subject matter is a movable good. 67. A significant observation made by a Three-judge Bench of this Court in Moti Laminates (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in (1995) 3 SCC 23 that succinctly drives home this cautionary note reads as follows: “11. […] The Tariff