Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 68 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Cus. (Import) vs Larsen And Toubro Ltd. on 1 November, 1999
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has provided all the services to M/s Rajashtan Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd. involving both goods and services. The
activity, therefore, amounts to works contract service. It is
submitted that issue of taxability of works contract
services/composite contracts was in dispute and it finally got
settled by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
C.Ex. & Cus., Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 3 Learned
counsel impressed upon that due to said confusion the appellant
was not aware about the tax liability. The department has,
therefore, wrongly alleged the suppression of facts. The show
cause notice since has invoked extended period of limitation is
alleged to be barred by time for the simple reason that the
appellant had no intention to evade payment of tax.
3.1 It is being repeatedly held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that
something positive other than mere inaction on the part of the
manufacturer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information
when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required for covering
extended period.
Hindalco Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 January, 2015
3.2 It is also held that all transactions were duly reflected in the
books of account and in the balance sheet. It was the
department‟s duty to verify the same at the appropriate time.
Invocation of extended period is not permissible where there is a
failure on this duty of the department. Learned counsel has relied
upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco
Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE10 . Tax was also not deposited under
the bona fide belief that the services are being provided to the
Government department engaged in distribution of power which
was exempted from whole of tax liability vide Notification
NO.11/2010 dated 27.01.2010.
M/S.Uflex Limited, Noida vs Cce & St, Noida on 10 August, 2015
The decision in the case of Noida
Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 11 has been relied upon. With these
submissions, learned counsel has prayed for show cause notice to
be held barred by time and for the impugned demand to be set
aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed
7 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC)
8 2003 (55) ELT 20 (SC)
9 2012-TIOL-987-HC-DEL-ST
10 2003 (161) ELT 346 (Tr.)
11 20w14 (33) STR 383 (Tri.)
5
ST/55233/2023
Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst And ... on 8 April, 2022
Tamil Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 January, 2007
Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of
Cosmic Dye Chemicals Vs. 4 , CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs &
Laminates5, Padmini Products Vs. CCE6, Tamil Nadu Housing
3 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)
4 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC)
5 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)
6 1989 (43) ELT 159 (SC)
4
ST/55233/2023
Board Vs. CCE 7 and T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE 8 .