In this case of United Shippers Ltd. Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) reopening u/s 148 was challenged by way of writ on the ground that assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years and reason recorded did not indicate any material which the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in the assessment proceedings.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of CIT V/s M/s Sai Prasad Properties Limited that an application under section 245D(2C) of the Act has to be disposed of after considering the objections raised by CIT
In was held by High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of M/s V M Salgaoncar Sale International V/s ACIT, that objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded U/s 148 of the Act can not be disposed off on an imaginary ground by the assessing Officer.
The hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa held in the case of Betts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT that when all the material facts necessary for assessment has been truly and full disclosed, the assessment can not be re opened after the expiry of time limit
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.
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.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd., it has been held by Goa High Court that it is not permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum.
