In the case of D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector Of Customs And Ors, it was held by Supreme Court that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing appropriate writs, are very wide.
It has been held in case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD V/s. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS by supreme court that,As per the Department, these imports were under invoiced at pound 1.40 per litre whereas the actual price of the said goods was pound 3.78 per litre.
In the case of CCE V/s. M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to the cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending.
Supreme Court held in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs Balwan Singh that the lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients, so they should act with the express consent of clients. Lawyers should not make any commitment without the consent of their clients and any commitment
Victory Aqua Farm Ltd vs ACIT (Supreme Court) The assessee has claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds by contending that these prawn ponds are tools to its business and therefore constitute ‘plant’ within the meaning of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Meghalaya Steels Ltd. the Supreme Court held that High Courts being Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them.
In the case of M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise it was held by Supreme Court that even during the period when the facility of payment of excise duty in instalments on fortnightly basis is not available and remains suspended
In the case of Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd., it was held by Supreme Court that service tax cannot be levied on indivisible works contracts prior to introduction, on 1st June, 2007.
In the case of M/s. Satnam Overseas Ltd. V/s. Commnr. of Central Excise it was held by Supreme Court that mere addition in the value after the original product has undergone certain process, would not bring it within the definition of ‘manufacture’ unless its original identity also under goes transformation and it becomes a distinctive and new product.
In the case of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. V/s Collector of Central Excise it was held by Supreme Court that Cost of Returnable Packing Material need not to be included in assessable value.
