Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Amco Batteries Limited, Bangalore vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 26 February, 2003

Ito 33 (3) (4), Mumbai vs Sudarshan R. Kharbanda, Mumbai on 19 September, 2018

referred to in sub-section (2)............ shall be allowed while computing the total income of the assessee. Sub-section (2) to section 80IC speaks about that any undertaking or enterprise (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing. The assessee unit was established in the area/backward area, wherein, specific concession was guaranteed and manufacturing is not in dispute, therefore, it is a beneficial section, therefore, the benefit cannot be denied to the assessee. So far as, whether 12 ITA No. 2160/Mum/2016 Sudarshan R. Kharbanda assembling is a manufacturing or not is concerned, there are so many decisions, wherein, it has been held that assembling tantamount to manufacturing as the end product is commercially known differently. So far as, the expression "derived from" or "derived by" is concerned, it has been elaborated in various decisions including NOCI Ltd vs Collector Central Excise, (1997) 106 STC 467, 470 (Supreme Court), ratio laid down in Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs CIT 206 ITR 505 (Bom.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, ... on 8 December, 2022

"In the present case, we have extracted in detail the process under taken by each of the respondents before us. In the present case, we are not concerned only with cutting of marble blocks into slabs. In the present case we are also concerned with the activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished slabs and tiles. What we find from the process indicated hereinabove is that there are various stages through which the blocks have to go through before they become polished slabs and tiles. In the circumstances, we are of the view that on the facts of the cases in hand, there is certainly an activity which will come in the category of 'manufacture' or 'production' under section 80-1A of the Income-tax Act. As stated hereinabove, the judgment of this court in Aman Marble Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2005] 1 SCC 279; [2003] 157 ELT 393 (SC) was not required to construe the word 'production' in addition to the word 'manufacture'. One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while deciding the question as to whether the activity constitutes manufacture or production. Therefore, looking to the nature of the activity stepwise, we are of the view that the subject activity certainly constitutes 'manufacture or production' in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrf Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 29 March, 2006

Ltd. v. Collector . Yet another ground raised by the appellants is that they were entertaining a bona fide belief that they were not liable to reverse the credit taken on inputs while exporting final products under the DEEC scheme. Such belief was said to be based on Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It has also been submitted that, on the question whether Modvat credit taken on inputs was liable to be expunged at the time of export, there were doubts in the minds of both the appellants and the departmental authorities and that, at one point of time, the CBEC Member (Customs) had suggested reference of the matter to the Law Ministry. As there was scope for doubt, it was not correct to invoke the extended period of limitation for demanding duty from the appellants.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. on 1 September, 2004

2. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by the judgment under appeal has set aside the order of Commissioner of Central Excise on the around that the Modvat credit was available to the respondent-assessee and on that basis alone coming to the conclusion that there could be no intention to evade payment of duty and thus the allegation of suppression so as to invoke the larger period of limitation under proviso to aforesaid section 11A would not survive. The order of the Tribunal is under challenge. When the appeal was heard before a Two judge Bench, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondent on a judgment of this Court in AMCO Batteries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, also to support the impugned judgment. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant before the Bench was that the decision in the case of AMCO was being frequently cited by the assessee before authorities to contend that when a party is entitled to get benefit of Modvat scheme, there could be no suppression by relying upon the observations that 'Further, the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of Modvat scheme, therefore, there was no justifiable reason for the appellant to suppress any fact'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Surat vs M/S. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd. & Ors on 26 April, 2004

11. Amco Batteries Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [2003(153) ELT 7 (SC)] We have carefully perused the judgments and orders passed by the CEGAT which are impugned in these appeals. As rightly contended by the counsel appearing on either side, the CEGAT failed to appreciate the arguments advanced before it by the counsel appearing on either party in its proper perspective. In fact, in Civil Appeal Nos. 13400/1996, 4672/1997 and 4762/ 1997, the CEGAT failed to appreciate that in several earlier judgments, the CEGAT consistently held that the advertisement expenditure incurred by a manufacturers' customer can be added to the sale price for determining the assessable value, only if the manufacturer has an enforceable legal right against the customer to insist on the incurring of such advertisement expenses by the customer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next