Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upheld Section 69 GST arrest powers, requiring recorded reasons, CrPC safeguards, CBIC instructions and limiting arr...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held excise duty paid by buyers formed part of turnover, discussed colourable devices, and distinguished legitim...
Corporate Law : A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or constitute law under Article 141. The doctrine of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, a...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court agreed to examine allegations that bank dues were settled at steep discounts through ARCs, while clarifying that...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dismissed a miscellaneous application challenging its signed order, holding it not maintainable and imposing ₹2,00...
Income Tax : Supreme Court modified compensation by reassessing a self-employed deceased’s annual income after considering ITRs and business ...
Corporate Law : SC allowed the appeal and granted NDPS bail after holding that a case for bail was made out, subject to Trial Court conditions....
Corporate Law : SC held a Ministers statement binds the Government only if it reflects the Governments view and declined to issue speech guideline...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court granted bail under the PMLA, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, delayed trial, parity with co-accused, ...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
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,
The core issue that falls for our consideration and decision in this appeal is: whether aluminium grills can be termed as Extruded aluminium products? If the answer is in positive, the assessee would be covered by Item Serial No.7 of the Product Code 61 of the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (for short “the DEPB Scheme”). The assessee has succeeded before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Revenue in this appeal calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order of the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has set aside the order of confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.
