Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S O.K. Play (India) Ltd vs Comm.Of Central Excise,Delhi-Iii, ... on 3 February, 2005
It was also submitted that in O.K. Play (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon) , in which the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Voltas Ltd. was followed and it was held in paragraph 23 that, the Tribunal is competent to classify the goods under the Heading which it found to be more appropriate.
Section 73 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.C.E. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 July, 2006
13. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in CCE, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in 2006 (3) STR 625 (Ken.), pointing out that, the Hon'ble High Court, in the context of the question of the liability on the service receiver for the period prior to the amendment of Rule 6(1), on 16.08.2002, held that, as per the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 that came into force w.e.f. 28.2.1999, it was stipulated that, in case of a person, who was non-resident or was from outside India and who did not have any office in India, the service tax due on the service rendered by him should be paid by such person or on his behalf by another person authorized by him, who should submit to the Commissioner of Central Excise, in whose jurisdiction the taxable services had been rendered, a return containing specific details with necessary enclosures.
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 2 February, 2006
He then, relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2006 (3) STR 481, pointing out from paragraph 11.1 of the judgment that, in a case where under the terms of the contract, the service tax was credited by the service recipient, it was held in the context of the provisions of Section 68 that, service tax payable in respect of taxable service, cannot become refundable merely because instead of the service provider collecting and crediting it to the Central Government, it was so credited by the recipient of service under their mutual arrangement.
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. And Voltas ... vs Collector Of Customs on 30 June, 1986
He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Voltas Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1997 (91) ELT 261 (SC), in which it was held that, after having reached the conclusion that Tariff Heading 84.18(1) would have been the correct heading, there was no reason for the Tribunal merely to dismiss the appeals and uphold the Revenue's contention. The Tribunal should have given a direction to make the assessment under the Heading 84.18(1), which, according to it, was the correct classification.
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare ... vs Cce on 20 February, 2007
He also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. CCE, Gurgaon decided on 20th February, 2007, pointing out that, in a case where the show cause notices alleged that the services provided were in the nature of management consultancy, it was held that they would fall under the category of business auxiliary service and that the tax was correctly paid.