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...
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
Explore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Customs Appeal 1150/2004 between Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, and Denso Kirloskar Industries. Details on CESTAT judgment.
SC held that So far as the special discount is concerned, all that the authorities have to look into whether as a matter of fact, the petitioner received only the sum originally charged less the discount. It is the look out of the traders to see that the trade increase and it is for that purpose the trade discount is given. Hence, a person may not be able to clearly prove as to why the special discount was given. But if there has been a consistent practice of giving special discount, that has to be accepted by the assessing authority. The Assessing Authority shall not reject the appellants’ claim for exemption of the amounts of trade discount solely on the ground that the discount amounts were not shown in the sale invoices.
CCE Vs. M/s. Plaxair India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)- In the present case, it is the stand of the assessee that the assessee had paid the duty under the provisions of the Act before the issue of the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, not liable for the payment of penalty and interest on the duty so paid under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Geeta S. Johari (Supreme Court)- The SC ruled, that if a disputing party asks its rival to appoint an arbitrator according to their agreement and if it is not complied with, the former can approach a court for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. After that, the arbitrator appointed by the court will proceed with the arbitration.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent appearing in-person, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, particularly when the issue raised in this Appeal has already been decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public servant
We have today delivered judgment in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.26558 of 2010 (M/s Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and other connected appeals setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of the Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Central Government has issued a Notification dated 01.03.2002 and in the said Notification it has classified the Electronic Automatic Regulators under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. In the present appeal, the Revenue effect is less than Rs.6 lacs and since the Revenue itself has classified the goods in dispute under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 from 01.03.2002, it may not be necessary for this Court to consider in detail the appeal filed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the period after 01.03.2002, in view of the Notification issued by the Central Government, the goods, namely Electronic Automatic Regulators would fall under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. With this observation and clarification, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court. . In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
No doubt there is a specific entry which speaks of Slagwool and Rockwool under Sub-heading No.6803.00, but there is yet another entry which is consciously introduced by the Legislature under sub-heading No.6807.10, which speaks of goods in which Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof are manufactured by use of more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are those goods in which more than 25% by weight of one or more of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. If that be the case, then, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied and the same has been done by the adjudicating authority,
