ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer to the copy/copies any copyright or other marking on the Software or Documentation. d) not use the Software or Documentation for any other purpose than permitted in this Article 20, License or sell or in any manner alienate or part with its possession. e) not use or transfer the Software and/or the Documentation outside India without the written consent

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

197, 201].” (emphasis added) 16. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Punjab Co­operative Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax9   is also very relevant.  It was held thus:  “The principle to be applied in such a case is now well settled. It was admirably stated in a Scottish   case, Californian   Copper Syndicate v. Harris

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act. It Undertook A Contract For Construction Of Bridges For M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (’Konkan Railway’, For Short), Which Is A Public Sector Undertaking. Appellant Manufactured Pre Stressed Concrete Girders (Psc Girders). It Used To Transport Them To The Site Of Construction Of Bridges Of The Railways. It Did Not Register Itself With The Authorities Of The Central Excise. 2. Alleging That The Appellant, For The Period March 1993 & December 1994, Although Was Involved In The Manufacturing Activity, By Undertaking Manufacture Of 75 Psc Girders, But Did Not Pay Any Excise Duty Thereupon. 3. A Notice Was Issued To The Appellant Directing It To Show Cause As To Why Central Excise Duty To The Tune Of Rs.32,35,575/- Should Not Be Demanded & Recovered From Them In Terms Of The Proviso Appended To Rule 49(1) Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) Read With Section 11A Of The Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (Act) & As To Why Penalty Should Not Be Imposed On Them & The Plant & Machinery & The Manufactured Goods Should Not Be Confiscated. Cause Was Shown By The Appellant Inter Alia Stating That No Excise Duty Was Payable. The Said Notice Was Withdrawn Stating: "The Said Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued Without Obtaining Approval Of The Proper Authority Or By The Proper Officer. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice Dated 27.1.94 Hereby Withdrawn.

transfer of trade mark to the appellants" discloses that the Tribunal accepted that there has been an assignment but proceeded to deal with the case of inapplicability of the exemption under the notification on the ground that the logo was being used by M/s. P & B Laboratories also. We have already indicated above that use of logo of the manufacturer

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

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

197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) where as it held that the extended period of limitation is also not invocable, we hold that the demand is highly barred by limitation.” (Emphasis supplied) SHOW CAUSE NOTICES 26. The first of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’, for short) is SCN No. 141 of 2013 dated 24.04.2013, which related