Raymond Limited V/s. CCEC (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument that between 1st March, 2002 to 9th September, 2004 the credit of AED(T&TA) can be used for payment of any of the specified duty referred to in SubRule (1) of Rule 3.
CEAT Limited V/s CCE&C( Bombay High Court)- If the liability to pay interest between the time or the period of provisional assessment and payment of differential duty until the final assessment has to be read in the Rule, that is not possible.
In the case of CCE V/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. it was held by Goa High Court held that the any expenditure incurred in the manufacturing activity would be entitled for credit facility and hence the expenses of mobile phones incurred in connection with manufacturing process shall be allowed.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. it has been held by Goa High Court held that where non-payment of duty is not with an intent to evade of payment then there can be no occasion to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
My this article particularly talks about what is the procedure and mechanism for assessing the value of the duty and what is the rate of the duty that shall be applied. Further it explains the Cases where the organization or the assessee can ask for remission, abatement for specific goods and exemptions from paying the duty.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. it was held that Rule 9 is a procedural aspect which cannot deny the claim of the respondents to avail of such CENVAT Credit which they are, otherwise, admittedly, entitled to and hence CENVAT credit is allowed on the basis of TR-6 challan.
Delhi High Court In the case of Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs DIT (Exemptions) held that Assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act if its activities are outside the scope of its objects, even if its activities are charitable in nature.
In the case of CIT Vs. MGF Automobiles Ltd., Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the additions could have been made by the AO only if some incriminating document was found during search.
The issue of “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) has been pending for nearly four decades. It is a matter of deep anguish that the various governments remained ambivalent on the issue of OROP. In February 2014, the then Government stated that OROP would be implemented in 2014-15
The Committee, after deliberations, decided that IBA shall write to member banks requesting to consider Cost Accountants / Firms of Cost Accountants for Stock Audit, Risk Based Internal Audit and Other Operations.
