AIT-2008-176-SC
Ponds India Ltd Vs. CTT, Lucknow

Whether petroleum jelly is a "drug" or a "cosmetic" within the meaning of the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948

Validity of exemption notification No.11/97-Cus dated 1.3.1997 granting exemption to various imported goods including EOT mobile crane required for setting up crude petroleum refinery-whether a crane when placed on a vehicle which the appellant wrongly stated to be a "motor vehicle" would fulfill the description of a "mobile crane or a material handling equipment".

whether the final products manufactured by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No.208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983

Whether micronutrient is a "Plant Growth Regulator" falls under CSH 3808.20 of the Central Excise Tariff as a chemical product or it falls under CSH 3105.00 (other fertilizers).

Non-profit organization-scope of enquiry by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(23C)(vi) read with the third proviso thereto inserted by Finance Act, 1998

The eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 for Hydrogen Peroxide manufactured and cleared from 100 % EOU to DTA

AIT-2008-222-SC
Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs. STO, Rourkela

A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority

Section 18(3) creates a rebutable legal presumption against the exporter whenever the prescribed period expires without repatriation of the export proceeds

Classification of "liquid  hair  dye"

Levy of Customs duty on import of the goods initially exported by the respondent-assessee, which were rejected by the foreign buyer being defective and the assessee re-imported them back to India.

Whether the Department would prefer appeals and/or file petitions without obtaining clearance from the Committee of Disputes 

Merely because in some cases the revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts

Whether "Rasna" is taxable as a `beverage' or `non-alcoholic drink'

a dealer can not make adjustment while depositing tax on the basis of tax out, admitted to be payable, of certain amounts which according to him had been deposited in excess for some other assessment periods

Interpretation of the expression "during the period of option permitted under this Section at any time" occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 5 and the expression "at any time" used in sub-rule (13) of Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939.

A land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a `consumer' entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service-provider under the Consumer Protection Act

liability to pay 50% of the aggregated customs duty on the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area . CBEC Circular No. 42 of 1997 was in direct conflict with the Notification No. 2/95. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications

whether the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be levied if the returned income is a loss
Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) is clarificatory and not substantive. The view expressed to the contrary in Virtual's case AIT-2007-83-SC is not correct.

 Provisions of clause (v) of sub Rule 10 of Rule 28 (A) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.

Agricultural Market Committee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act after insertion of the said Explanation vide Finance Act, 2002

Stay in Appeal-For a hardship to be `undue' it must be shown that the particular burden to have to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it

22 products are covered under the Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 3003.30 and not under Chapter 33 of Central Excise Tariff and thus the said products would invite the duty as "Ayurvedic medicines" at the rate of 10% advalorem and not at the rate of 40% advalorem as claimed by the Revenue Department

Section 80HHC(3) statutorily fixes the quantum of deduction on the basis of a proportion of business profits under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" irrespective of what could strictly be described as profits derived from export

The Tribunal decided the matter on October 27, 2000. Hiralal Bhagwati was decided few months prior to that decision, but it was not brought to the attention of the Tribunal. Tribunal has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction in exercising power under sub- section (2) of Section 254 of the Act and in rectifying "mistake apparent from the record".

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in holding that expression "like article" includes only the article which is the subject matter of investigation after being identified for the purpose of Rule 4(1)(b) and not on any other 'like article'

Grant of interest for delayed refund of amount payable under Central Excise Act-if the claim of interest is on equitable ground, a written demand therefore is imperative-In terms of Section 11BB (1), assessee is entitled to interest

Incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt not includible in the total income

Whether could it be said that the contract between the Indian buyer and TISCO on the one hand and the contract between TISCO and Tata Incorporated, USA on the other are so inextricably interlinked so as to attract the first limb of Section 5(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

Show cause notice has not even alleged that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Shikakai powder by crushing shigekai pods and 'Reeta' being mixed and, consequently, the entire adjudication stands derailed

Goods in question are components and cannot be treated as complete colour Television sets and hence the duty demand, confiscation of penalty are unsustainable

In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act

As the Revenue had accepted the decision in the case of Bata India Ltd. arising from the same order of the authority in original and there being no change on facts the appeal against the respondent could not be proceeded with. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation