Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.59 seconds)
Emami Agrotech Ltd vs -Kolkata(Port) on 5 September, 2024 cites

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

The above view of the Gujarat High Court was followed in S.No (iii) to (v) above. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in S No (ii) above was concerned with the subsequent notification no 96/2004 - Cus dated 17.09 2004 operationalizing the DEPB Scheme and the Tribunal in S.No (v) was concerned with the notification no 32/2005-Cus operationalizing the Target Plus Scheme The conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inpuls 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 18 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 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 17 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