Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.22 seconds)
Schneider Electric India Pvt Ltd vs Delhi on 28 June, 2023 cites

M/S. Munjal Showa Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 23 September, 2022

(ii) Munjal Showa Ltd. v. CCE 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 145 (Tri. - Chan.) "7. On going through the said provisions of the Act, we find that, to tax under service tax, under Intellectual Property Rights, such rights should be registered with Trademark/Patent authorities. It is a fact on record that such trade mark is not registered in India. Moreover, the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 17-9-2004 relied upon by the ld. AR is having no help to the Revenue as it has been clarified that the taxable service include only such Intellectual Property Rights except Copyright that are prescribed under the law for the time being in force, as the term 'time being in force' implies that, as are applicable in India, and Intellectual Propertyrights covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax and Intellectual Property Rights like Integrated Circuits or Undisclosed Information would not cover under the taxable services. Admittedly, Trade Mark rights which have been used by the appellant-assessee are not registered in India, therefore, the same are not liable to tax under IPR service"
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - M R Shah - Full Document

Commr. Of Central Excise And Customs vs Advantage Media Consultant Siddharth ... on 19 March, 2008

"2.14.1 The appellants argued that Service tax demand under reverse charge, even if applicable, would be revenue neutral. The appellants have claimed the benefit of cum-tax price. They have claimed that if the consideration received form DHLI is indeed treated as consideration for services provided by them to DHLI then that amount may be treated as Cum tax amount. They relied on the decision of CCE vs Advance Media Consultants 2008 TIOL 548 CESTAT wherein it has been held that the service tax being an indirect tax the consideration needs to be considered as Cum Tax consideration. The said decision has been maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court 2009 (14) STR J49 (SC). The argument of the appellants have force. The amount received by them is an all inclusive cost plus consideration in which everything is included. Thus it has to be treated as Cum tax amount and the demand needs to be quantified accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004

16. Ld. AR further submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. - 2004 (164) ELT 375 (S.C.), the present case should be kept in abeyance till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Ld. AR also stated that under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of M/s DLF Home Developers Ltd. adjourned the matter till the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 254 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Century Enka Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 19 October, 1993

"6. Considering the submissions made, and taking up first, the request of the Ld. SDR to defer the decision on the issue till the outcome of the similar issue pending before the Supreme Court, it may be observed that, going by the decisions cited, even the Supreme Court had some occasions to consider the issue and give their considered view on the same, and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, would so far as the same is not over-ruled or reversed, remains a good law. Further, it is also not clear as to whether the said court has at all decided to review their own decisions earlier given. Merely because some appeals, involving the same point has been accepted for hearing, cannot by itself, be a ground to suspend or postpone decision of any identical issue raised before any subordinate judicial or quasi-judicial authority, sine die. That could result into a situation where majority of the litigation could come to a standstill.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. on 24 September, 1991

Further, the Supreme Court has in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (SC) in relation to implementation of the order appealed against, observed that mere filing of the appeal is no ground for not following the order passed and the Madras High Court has in two of their judgments, Mahendra Engineering Works v. Collector -1992 (60) E.L.T. 194 (Mad.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 397 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next