Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.89 seconds)
Emami Agrotech Limited vs Commissioner Of ... on 29 February, 2024 cites

Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001

39. The contention of Revenue is that debit of BCD to the scrip under the said notifications is an alternate method of payment and not an exemption, per se, so as to justify the computation of SWS on notional BCD. We find that such contention of Revenue is not in consonance with the method of calculation of SWS provided in Sec 110(3) of the Finance Act 2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Somaiya Organics (supra), has held categorically that the expression 'collection' in the context of tax laws would mean physical realization of tax, whereas, in the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has himself accepted in the Impugned Order that no money representing BCD goes to the exchequer under the said notifications. Meaning, thereby, that the context of physical realization of tax is clearly not met and the debit of BCD to the scrip is at best a notional collection of tax, when the said notifications are read in entirety. Had the debit to scrip been equivalent to cash payment or any other admissible mode of payment, there was no need to grant any exemption as duty levied would have been discharged in full using such scrips. The statutory provision is quite clear that power to exempt any duty of Customs is within section 25 only and thus, once BCD is exempted in terms of notification issued under Sec 25, it would tantamount to exemption from duty and no other interpretation is possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 43 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs ... vs M/S Kedia Overseas Ltd on 22 December, 2014

In the case of Kedia Overseas Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was considering similar exemption under Sec 25(1) of the Act, where exemption was provided from whole of the Customs duty leviable including additional duty subject to the condition, inter alia, that the importer has been issued a Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) by the Licensing Authority in terms of the FTP. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the intention of the Government is to exempt the whole of BCD/ACD/SAD. It is, therefore, not possible to read any further restriction as to levy of EC in respect of duty free imports under DEPB scheme. Further, the Hon'ble High Court has also taken notice that under similar facts and circumstances, the ruling of this Tribunal in Ruchi Health Foods Ltd (Chennai Bench) and Reliance Industries Ltd (Mumbai Bench) have become final as the Revenue has not challenged the same in further Appeal. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Appeal of Revenue.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 September, 2004

(g) The Appellant in the instant Appeals, is not seeking an exemption from the payment of SWS. Instead, the leviability of SWS is itself being challenged. In this regard, the Appellant would like to state that exemption presupposes a liability, and it can only operate when there is a valid levy/liability. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs State of Bihar [2004 (7) SCC 642] and in the case of Peekay Re-Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner [2009 (13) STR 305].
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 39 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next