Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing All India Indian Overseas Bank Sc & St ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 1996

Jaipur I.. vs Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd on 19 August, 2024

42. It would also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in S.S. Overseas vs. Union of India 23. The facts before the Allahabad High Court were almost similar. The importer had confirmed in writing his acceptance of the re-assessment and, therefore, a speaking order was not passed. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court are reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uop Inter Americana vs Service Tax - Delhi on 14 November, 2025

2006 or otherwise. The appellants during the course of personal hearing have cited the judgement in the case of Indian Shipowners 16 ST/2149/2012 ST/56817/2013 Association v. UOI wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had dismissed the petition filed by Central Government challenging the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (BOM), held that "it appears that it is first tie when the Act was amended and Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 18-4-2006, the respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of taxable service. Now, because of the enactment of Section 66A, a person who is resident in India or business in India becomes liable to be levied service tax when he receives service outside India from a person who is non resident or is from outside India. Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was no authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India, but who received services outside India... Thus, in view of the above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court it becomes clear that reverse charge tax shift mechanism operating under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rule, 1994 read with Section 66 A of the Finance Act, 1994 is effective only from 18.06.2006
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tecmax Electronics vs New Delhi(Icd Tkd) on 30 September, 2022

9. He further submits that the High Court of Allahabad has also held in M/s S.S. Overseas and others versus Union of India9 that where the petitioners had confirmed in writing the acceptance of re-assessment they are exists no occasion to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment and accordingly dismissed the batch of writ-petitions. Therefore, the appellant, having accepted the assessable value of U.S. $ 163 per piece through several letters, cannot now assail the same. Although, the appellant have agreed to U.S. $ 163 per piece as the value, the Adjudicating Authority adopted a still lower price of U.S. $ 147.5 per piece. However, since there is no Department's appeal against this reduction, he is not contesting this reduction of price.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document
1