Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)
M/S Otis Elevators Comp.(India) ... vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes ... on 26 August, 2014 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Kone Elevators (India) Ltd on 17 February, 2005

"66. Coming back to Kone Elevators (supra), it is perceivable that the three-Judge Bench has referred to the statutory provisions of the 1957 Act and thereafter referred to the decision in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and has further taken note of the customers' obligation to do the civil construction and the time schedule for delivery and thereafter proceeded to state about the major component facet and how the skill and labour employed for converting the main components into the end product was only incidental and arrived at the conclusion that it was a contract for sale. The principal logic applied, i.e., the incidental facet of labour and service, according to us, is not correct. It may be noted here that in all the cases that have been brought before us, there is a composite contract for the purchase and installation of the lift. The price quoted is a composite one for both.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 6 May, 2014

In my opinion, since the assessing authority has made the assessment relying exclusively on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/S Kone Elevator, (2005) 140 STC 22 (SC) which has now been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2014 (71) VST 1 (SC), the revisionist is entitled to complete stay of the demand amount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

M/S. Itc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 6 January, 2014

In case it is covered by the judgment of a Court/Tribunal binding upon the Appellate Authority, it should apply its mind as to whether in view of the said judgment, the appellant is likely to succeed on merit. If an appellant having strong prima facie case, is asked to deposit the amount of assessment so made or penalty so levied, it would cause undue hardship to him, though there may be no financial restrain on the appellant running in a good financial condition. The arguments that appellant is in a position to deposit or if he succeeds in appeal, he will be entitled to get the refund, are not the considerations for deciding the application. The order of the Appellate Authority itself must show that it had applied its mind to the issue raised by the appellant and it has been considered in accordance with the law. The expression "undue hardship" has a wider connotation as it takes within its ambit the case where the assessee is asked to deposit the amount even if he is likely to exonerate from the total liability on disposal of his appeal. Dispensation of deposit should also be allowed where two view are possible. While considering the application for interim relief, the Court must examine all pros and cons involved in the case and further examine that in case recovery is not stayed, the right of appeal conferred by the legislature and refusal to exercise the discretionary power by the authority to stay/waive the pre-deposit condition, would be reduced to nugatory/illusory. Undoubtedly, the interest of the Revenue cannot be jeopardized but that does not mean that in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, the Court or authority should exercise its duty under the law to take into consideration the rights and interest of an individual. It is also clear that before any goods could be subjected to duty, it has to be established that it has been manufactured and it is marketable and to prove that it is marketable, the burden is on the Revenue and not on the manufacturer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1