Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-Ii on 29 January, 2014
The contention of the appellant that
the bank credit includes re-deposit, it was noted that the appellant had
never pointed out at any stage that the deposit also includes re-
deposit, loan transfer, cheque bounce etc and that the impugned
demand of SCN was incorrect. The said contention made now was
nothing but an afterthought. The said contention was also not tenable
in view of the confession made by the MD of the company. As per
decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Bombay
Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of service tax,
Mumbai-ll2, there remains no doubt about inclusion of elements such
as salary, ESI etc., in the value of taxable service for payment of
service tax. The appellant could not explain that the gross value was
Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad on 15 April, 2009
The
Department has prepared the table based on corroborated evidence
whereas the appellant has not led any evidence to substantiate his
claim. We find that this contention is not tenable as the statement of
the Managing Director of the noticee recorded under Section 14 of
Central Excise Act, 1944 as enumerated in the previous paragraph. We
find that it is a settled legal principle that „what is admitted need not
be proved‟, as enshrined in Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. We
draw support from the Supreme Court‟s judgment dated 15.4 2009 in
Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad in Civil Appeal No. 2543 of 2009
wherein the Court held as follows:
Avtar Singh And Ors vs Gurdial Singh And Ors on 4 December, 2006
In view of the aforementioned provision, there cannot be any
doubt or dispute that a thing admitted need not be proved. [See
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v.
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and
Another (2006) 2 SCC 269, Avtar Singh and Others v. Gurdial
Singh and Others (2006) 12 SCC 552, Gannmani Anasuya and
Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others (2007) 10
SCC 296]"
Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Gannmani Anasuya & Ors vs Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors on 17 May, 2007
In view of the aforementioned provision, there cannot be any
doubt or dispute that a thing admitted need not be proved. [See
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v.
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and
Another (2006) 2 SCC 269, Avtar Singh and Others v. Gurdial
Singh and Others (2006) 12 SCC 552, Gannmani Anasuya and
Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others (2007) 10
SCC 296]"