33 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 2(f).
Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18
The appeals are dismissed
Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the
Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 12Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : - Heard Learned Counsel On Either Side. There Is A Delay Of 384 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Under Section 35G Of The Central Excise Act, Challenging The Order Passed By The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata Dated 17.12.2019. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Erred In Not Holding That Availing Credit By The Respondent Cannot Be Substantive Right Since The
In the result, the appeals are allowed to
Bench: The Tribunal & By The Impugned Order, The Tribunal Confirmed The Demand Of Duty & Modified The Penalty & Interest Imposed By The Commissioner. The Reason Given By The Tribunal In The Impugned Order Is That This Court In Union Of India Versus J.G. Glass Industries Ltd.,[1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)], Had Held That Printing Carried Out On Plain Glass Bottles In A Different Factory Would Not Amount To “Manufacture” Under Section 2(F) Of The Act, But, If Manufacture Of Bottles & Printing Thereon Are Carried Out Within The Same Factory, Then The Ultimate Product, Which Happens
Accordingly, these are dismissed
Bench: The Court Was: G "Whether The Tarpaulin Made-Ups Which Are Prepared After Cutting & Stitching The Tarpaulin Fabric & Fixing The Eye-Lets Would Involve The Process Of Manufacture And, Hence, Would Fall Within The Definition Of 'Manufacture' ?" H 620
Appeals are allowed as
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent
Bench: The Fabrics Were Packed & Cleared.
Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2
