CCE Vs M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation.
Royal En field (Unit of M/s. Eicher Ltd.) Vs CCE (Supreme Court of India)- In the decision of Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. reported at 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that where the goods are delivered in a packed condition at the time of removal the cost of such packing shall be included.
Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supreme Court of India)- On submission of counsel that assessee intend to make application before CBDT, the SC permitted assessee to make a representation to the CBDT, within fifteen days under s 119(2) either for the waiver of interest or to condone the delay in filing the rectification application under s 154 on account of a mistake, the interest income was offered to tax and the tax was also paid on it.
Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi- III (Supreme Court of India)- The question which arose before the Tribunal was that whether these items used for fabricating structures to support and install various machinery of the sugar plant are capital goods in terms of the Rule 57Q. The Tribunal while allowing the MODVAT credit found that these items, except MS sections and shapes, used for raising structure to support the various machines, parts of machinery of the plant would be covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q as a capital goods.
Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & C., Cochin (Supreme Court of India)- Amount received by the cellular telephone company from its subscribers towards SIM Card will form part of the taxable value for levy of service tax, for the SIM Cards are never sold as goods independent from services provided.
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd Vs DCIT (Supreme Court) – Failure on the part of the AO to apply section 14A of the Act when he passed the original assessment order had prima facie resulted in escapement of income. The object and purpose of the proviso to section 14A of the Act is to bar reassessment/ rectification of past cases which have attained finality and not an original assessment on the basis of retrospective amendment in the statute book.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs Vinod Kumar (Supreme Court of India)- Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they were displaced persons from Pakistan.
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (Supreme Court of India)- Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter called “PWD”) decided in September 1997 to construct the Bharatpur bye-pass for the road from Bharatpur to Mathura, which passed through a busy market of the city of Bharatpur. For the aforesaid work, tenders were invited with a stipulation that the work would be executed on the basis of Build Operate and Transfer (BOT). The total extent of the road had been 10.850 k.ms. out of which 9.6 k.ms. was new construction and 1.25 k.ms. was improvement, i.e. widening and strengthening of the existing portion of Bharatpur-Deeg Road. B.
Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills -Supreme Court- It is observed by the SC that We, may however, hasten to add that it is high time when the Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy, laying down strict parameters for the guidance of the field staff for deciding whether or not an appeal in a particular case is to be filed. We are constrained to observe that the existing guidelines are followed more in breach, resulting in avoidable allegations of malafides etc on the part of the officers concerned.
ITO v Mangat Ram Norata Ram Narwana and Anr. (Supreme Court of India) – There is no statutory requirement that signature on the return has to be made in presence of the Income-tax authority. Nothing has been brought in evidence by the accused Hem Raj that signature did not belong to him on the return and the penalty was paid mistakenly. We are of the opinion that the appellate court misdirected itself in not considering the evidence in right perspective and acquitting the accused, so also the High Court which failed to correct the apparent error. This render their judgments unsustainable. Any other view may induce the appellant to compel the assessee to file return in the presence of the authority so that the signature is proved by direct evidence by such authority in trial. This will lead to a difficult situation not contemplated under the Act.
