Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.28 seconds)
Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Port) on 14 November, 2024 cites

M/S.Dec Agrotech Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Port), ... on 20 March, 2012

Commissioner placed its dated 31.01.2005 has been held reliance upon Circular No. to be contrary to the provisions 05/2005 - Cus. dated of the law and was set aside 31.01.2005 to hold that vide the judgement in the case education cess at the rate of Gujarat Ambuja Exports of 2% can be debited from Limited (supra). Therefore, the the scrips under the DEPB observation of the Ld. Appellate scheme and the same is Commissioner in so far as it applicable to the facts of seeks to apply the said circular the instant case as the said to the facts of the present case Circular has not been is unsustainable and arbitrary. rescinded till date.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd vs Govt Of India & on 13 August, 2013

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - R H Shukla - Full Document

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

Therefore, SWS is required to be quantified @ 10% with reference to specified duties of customs, which are not only levied but also collected by the Ministry of Finance. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant had imported goods by availing the benefit of Notification No. 24/2015 and Notification No. 25/2015 ('the said notifications') and fulfilled the conditions thereunder. It is the case of the Appellant that under the said notifications issued in exercise of the powers to grant exemption under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, BCD stands exempted albeit subject to the condition inter alia of a debit to the MEIS/SEIS scrip (as the case may be) of the BCD leviable on the goods but for the exemption. Since there is no actual collection of BCD in view of the exemption, the Appellant argues that no SWS can be levied and collected with reference to notional BCD under Section 110(3) of the Finance Act, 2018 extracted (supra). The contention of the revenue, on the other hand, is that debit of BCD to the scrip under the said notifications is an alternate mode of payment and not an exemption perse so as to justify the computation of SWS. However, we find that BCD amount is conspicuously reflected as "zero" in the BOEs filed availing the said notifications, which is not in consonance with the contention of the revenue that BCD is collected in case of goods imported under the said notifications The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Somaiya Organics Case (supra) has held in no un-certain terms 20 Customs Appeal Nos.75431,75432,75267-75268, 75269-75279, 75295-75314, 75315-74334, 75280 -75294, 75352-75364, 75335-75351, 75433-75440/2020,75849/2023,75151/2024 75835-75846/2023, 76145/2024, 75821,75823-75827, 75829-75834, 75847-75848/2023, 76146,76147/2024, 75134-75146,75159, 75161 -75174,75177-75192,75253- 75266/2020 that the expression "collection" in the context of tax laws would mean "physical realization of tax" where as in the instant case, the Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 28 of the impugned orders that no money representing BCD goes to the exchequer under the said notifications meaning thereby that the test of "physical realization of lax 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. Moreover, a similar condition of debit to the duty credit scrips as prevalent in the notifications operationalizing the DEPB scheme and the Target Plus Scheme had fallen for consideration of various High Courts and Tribunal in the following cases in the context of levy and collection of EC imposed by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004:
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 43 - B N Kirpal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next