CCEC v. Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- Mere cutting of jumbo rolls of paper into smaller sizes and printing thereon by job-worker resulting into ‘printed cork tipping paper’ does amount to ‘manufacture’ for purpose of charging excise duty.
CCCE&S Vs. M/s TPSC (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh HC)- Contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal ought not to have granted absolute waiver and also stay of recovery without imposing any condition, does not merit any consideration in the facts of the case.
The Tribunal had also, considering the fact that when there was a scope for doubt whether the goods were dutiable or not, refused to apply extended period of limitation. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Camphor Drugs and Laminates
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. (High Court), At the outset, it may be noted that consequent to the Constitutional amendment, levy of Sales Tax on the Works Contract came to be introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 01.07.1985.
Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Vs.M/s.Voltarc India (P) Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh High Court)- Tribunal also found that Voltarc symbol which was being used on the wrapper and packer was reflecting only the name of the company
CIT Vs. G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh HC) Merely because the assessee made a claim which was not acceptable ipso-facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
Pr. CIT Vs. M/s G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The case of the appellant-Department, in brief, is that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands with a clear intention to trade in buying and selling of agricultural lands
CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Individual items of centering and shuttering material used collectively in construction process constitute ‘Plant’ in terms of first proviso to section 32 (1), even if they can’t be used on stand alone basis.
CCECE Vs. M/s. Surana Telecom Limited (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) Rule 57L of the Rules which says that no credit of money on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products shall be allowed if the final products are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon
Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. ACIT In this case the writ petition was filed by the Assessee in which the AP High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that whenever an order is made under the re-assessment
