Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
The process of sterilization does not mean that such articles are not complete in themselves . Surgical instruments continue to be the same even after sterilization and if the contention of department is accepted, every time such instruments are sterilized, the same surgical instruments are manufactured again & again when the same is sterilized again & again. This would lead to absurd results and fly in the face of common sense.
In the instant case, Addisons Paints & Chemical Ltd. was manufacturing paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Excise Tariff Act. The final products manufactured were packed in tins and plastic containers which were then put in carton boxes for the purpose of transportation and then sold to the wholesale dealers.
The Assessee contented that the so-called vend fee in the present case is nothing but a consensual arrangement by which ultimately machinery and equipment used by sugar mills which were very old and which require urgent repair / replacement could be so repaired or replaced.
Whether assessee is entitled to the benefit of disallowance of commission purportedly paid by assessee to its commission agents for procurement of order for supply of liquor. Whether High Court can exercise jurisdiction in absence of any question of perversity of the finding of the tribunal.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was available to the Appellant itself), the Appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade duty.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act would get attracted and goods may be liable for confiscation when value of goods in invoices is exaggerated. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Vs. G.P. Jaiswal [2015 (57) Taxman 295 – SC]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since CT-3 certificates were filed before the Department, no clearance could have taken place without the knowledge of the officer as to the ultimate destination of the goods and the fact that they were cleared without payment of duty in terms of the exemption notification, which was specified in the application.
Whether it is open to the assessee to claim depreciation for the current year and not claim unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years. Whether it is unabsorbed investment allowance which is to be allowed as set off in computing the income of the assessee or unabsorbed depreciation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not case of wilful misstatement, since all the facts and manner were disclosed in letter addressed to the Department. Hence, extended period could not be invoked.
In the instant case, Sanjay Industrial Corporation (the Appellant) was engaged in profile cutting viz. cutting larger size plates into small size and shapes using gas cutting machines, as per requirements of customers. The Department invoked extended period of limitation alleging that the process carried out by Appellant amount to manufacture and thus exigible to Excise duty.
