Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
E.I.D.Parry India Limited vs Customs Excise And Service Tax on 27 January, 2015 cites

Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 March, 2005

12. Accordingly, following the above-said decision of the Supreme Court Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013) and in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry V. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.No.1322 of 2009 dated 04.09.2014), the substantial questions of law admitted by this Court are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 213 - R Pal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Customs, Excise And Gold (Control) ... on 5 May, 2005

12. Accordingly, following the above-said decision of the Supreme Court Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013) and in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry V. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.No.1322 of 2009 dated 04.09.2014), the substantial questions of law admitted by this Court are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

"23. As we have said, Rule 2(1)(d) (xii) and (xvii) had been held to be illegal in Laghu Udhyog Bharati only because the charging provisions of the Act provided otherwise. Now that the charging section itself has been amended so as to make the provisions of the Act and the Rules compatible, the criticism of the earlier law upheld by this Court can no longer be availed of. There is thus no question of the Finance Act, 2000 overruling the decision of this Court in Laghu Udhyog Bharati as the law itself has been changed. A legislature is competent to remove infirmities retrospectively and make any imposition of tax declared invalid, valid. This has been the uniform approach of this Court. Such exercise in validation must of course also be legislatively competent and legally sustainable. Those issues are considered separately. On the first question, we hold that the law must be taken as having always been as is now brought about by the Finance Act, 2000. The statutory foundation for the decision in Laghu Udhyog Bharati has been replaced and the decision has thereby ceased to be relevant for the purposes of construing the present provisions (vide Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document

Laghu Udyog Bharati And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999

The appellant/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of sanitaryware Sugar, Molasses, Denatured spirit etc. They availed the services of Goods Transport Operator during different periods between 1997 and 1999. The goods transport service was brought under service tax with effect from 16.11.1997. There was a wide protest by the transporters for levy of service tax and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC) struck down the provisions of Service Tax Rules, thereby making the service receiver liable to pay service tax. Consequently, amendments were brought to Finance Act, 2000, whereby the service receiver was liable to pay service tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 179 - Full Document
1