M/S. D.J. MALPANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalty under Section 173Q and interest under Section 11AA should not be levied. After hearing the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner held vide order dated 26.02.2002 that Dharmada cannot be considered as trading receipts and was not part of the assessable value. Therefore, no duty was payable on the component of Dharmada. 5. Thereafter, in an appeal filed by Revenue

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI vs. M/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THR. ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA

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

penalty was imposable nor interest leviable. M/s Ganpati Overseas, therefore, requested the Commissioner to drop the proceedings. 12 6. Reply of the respondents was found to be not acceptable. Therefore, the case was taken up for adjudication. Accordingly, the case was transferred to Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-1), New Customs House, Mumbai for the purpose of adjudication. During the adjudication

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

transfer from their factory to their depots would not amount to sale of goods and actual sale of goods took place from their depots and when the goods were sold they were having printed retail price on the packages and also that the sale price charged from the buyers was the sale transaction notwithstanding there were free gifts that

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

penalty. The appellants then filed appeal before the Tribunal but without success. During the course of pendency of the appeal barring three all other importers voluntarily deposited the duty as per the classification then suggested. In these appeals, the learned counsel for the appellants urged four contentions which had been unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunal. These contentions were (i) Excise

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

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

penalty, the respondent filed appeals before the CESTAT. By the impugned common order, the CESTAT has allowed the said appeals, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Sojitz Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, reported in 2009 (14) STR 642 (Tri. Delhi) and has held that the said design and drawings are ‘goods’ and not ‘service

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-I vs. M/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD

penalties and interest. The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner by filing appeal before the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') taking the plea that 'additional consideration' under Section 4 of the Act refers only to the additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee and in the present case no such additional consideration

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

transferred title of land to SICCL after negotiating the price thereof with the owners and procuring a Power of Attorney to execute the sale deeds. Hence, these activities were purely of sale/conveyance of immovable property which clearly falls within the exception as provided under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, reproduced supra. 44. Thus

THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, ASSAM vs. SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI.(with connected appeals)

In the result appeal No. 162 of 1955 brought by the State of

price for that small " modicum of ownership which the landlord transfers to the tenant.’ In the Assam cases Ram Labhaya J. said that by settling the lands and accepting salami the landlord parts with the right of immediate occupation. The characteristics and incidence of salami disclosed from the " statements of the cases " are that it is a lump

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

transferred approximately 41000 MT of pulp to its sister unit and had paid duty at the rate of eight per cent of the cost price declared by them. 5. Three show cause notices were issued by the Department dated 21.5.1999, 30.9.1999 and 18.11.1999 in which it was alleged that if comparable prices obtained by the sister units are taken into

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

price from the land procurers, i.e. the Appellant and Mr. Surendra Reddy. As per Clause 10 of this MOU, Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) was paid to the procurers for arranging facilitation of transfer of land from the landowners to Mr. Hashim Moosa/his nominees. No other payment, except a reimbursement under Clause 11, was contemplated under this

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

penalty.  9. The show cause notice referred to above was adjudicated by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DGCEI, Delhi, who, in turn, confirmed the demand of service tax amount to Rs. 56,07,05,595/­ (Rupees Fifty Six Crore Seven Lakh Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five Only) alleged to have been not   paid   by   the   assessee   on   the   service

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

transfers, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173C with the excise department. In these declarations, the appellant claimed deduction towards Sales Tax, Cash Discount and Volume Discount on excise duty payable to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Apart from undertaking manufacturing activities, the appellant at times also receives

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

penalty on the persons responsible for the said suppression and evasion. 6. Being grieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, the assessee preferred three appeals, namely, Appeal NO. E/2279-2281 of 2002. The Tribunal posed the question whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect

TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Bench: Us, Has Imported Certain Equipments & Drawings & Engineering Documents From Siderugia National Of Portugal - A Government Of Portugal Undertaking. It Appears That Some Time In The Year 1981 Italimpianti, Genevo, Italy Supplied Materials, Designs & Engineering Drawings Etc. To Siderugia National Portugal (Hereinafter Snp, For Short) For Setting Up Rolling Mill Project In Portugal. The Supplies Consisted Of Equipments For Blast Furnace, Ld Converter, Steel Plant Bellet Castors, Wire Rod Mills, Torpedo Ladle Cars Etc.. However, Before The Equipments Could Be Installed, Portugal Decided To Join European Economic Community (Eec) Consequent Whereupon Portugal Could Not Have Expanded Its Steel Making Capacity. Snp Decided To Cancel Its Investment Plan & To Sell The Equipments & Materials Which Were Lying Unused

Penalties were imposed on other noticees also. The appellant and other noticees preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta which have been disposed of by a common order. The Tribunal has held that the three contracts entered into between the seller, i.e., SNP and the appellant were in fact parts of one package, that

T.T.G.INDUSTRIES, MADRAS vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the

price list and thus the demand of duty having been raised beyond the period of six months is barred by limitation. c) for the same reason as in (b), no penalty can be imposed on the appellants". The cross objection filed by the Collector was not pressed. The members of the CEGAT differed in their opinions. While the judicial member

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

transferred from one company to another; depots of Shaw Wallace and DIL were in the same premises; DIL sends monthly newsletters to Shaw Wallace showing production, despatches, purpose, technical problems, quality problems, details of power consumption etc. - and Shaw Wallace fixes the price of DIL products; and unsecured loans of approximately Rs.55 lakhs were given by Shaw Wallace

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to levy service tax on services involved in the execution of a works contract. However, I also propose an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

transferred only to two sister concerns and no sale is involved, the assessable value of instant tea removed to the respondent’s own units would be determined on the basis of the export price of similar goods and not 115% of the cost of production. 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3. The order in original dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional