SC - Supreme Court JUDGEMENTS

AIT-2008-05-SC Infosys Technologies Limited Vs CIT, Bangalore	ESOP-Estimation of TDS under Section 192 in the absence of clear provisions on valuation of "perquisite" would not justify the Department in treating the respondent as assessee in default
AIT-2008-06-SC Suresh N. Gupta Vs CIT-II	Whether the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to “block assessment” under Chapter XIV-B in respect of the search carried out on 17.1.2001; whether the proviso inserted in Section 113 by the Finance Act, 2002 is clarificatory?
AIT-2008-07-SC Mathania Fabrics Vs CCE, Jaipur	Central Excise-not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 173/77 as part of the process was being carried out with the use of power
AIT-2008-08-SC Nirlex Spares Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE	Printing of hexagonal design on the goods, where such hexagonal design is not owned by the Marketing Company, would not disentitle from the benefit of SSI excise exemption
AIT-2008-09-SC Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT & Ors	Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive
AIT-2008-18-SC Indian Dairy Machinery Co. Ltd. Vs ACCT	Karnataka Sales Tax Act-composition under Section 17(6)
AIT-2008-19-SC M/s Anis Ahmad and Sons Vs CIT, Kanpur	CIT is right in holding the assessee as an Arhatiya’ (Commission Agent) and not as ‘trader’
AIT-2008-20-SC Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs State of A.P. & Ors.	Constitutional validity of the explanation to the definition of the term ‘person’ defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987
AIT-2008-23-SC Anil Chanana Vs Union of India	Test for Compounding of offences under Customs Act
AIT-2008-25-SC Videocon International Ltd. Vs SK Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer	FEMA
AIT-2008-33-SC Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana	High Court ought not to have disposed of the appeal without recording reasons
AIT-2008-35-SC Biecco Lawrie Ltd Vs CC, Calcutta	Rate of duty on imported goods warehoused under Section 68 of Customs Act and subsequently cleared from the warehouse- where the goods are cleared for home consumption under Section 46, the duty payable would be as on the date the goods were cleared for home consumption.
AIT-2008-37-SC Phil Corporation Ltd Vs CCCE, Goa	processed cashew nuts, peanuts, almonds etc. by dry roasting, oil roasting, salting, seasoning and packing them in different containers and clearing these items under brand name is subject to excise
AIT-2008-42-SC M/s Intel Design Systems (India) P. Ltd Vs CCCE	even though used specifically solely or principally with the armoured vehicles of Chapter Heading 8710, they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8536.90
AIT-2008-46-SC Core Health Care Ltd Vs Deputy CIT, Ahmedabad	interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act
AIT-2008-47-SC Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd Vs Deputy CIT, Baroda	"commitment charges" can be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income-tax Act-"charges" paid to COFACE is similar to payment of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, allowed as deduction
AIT-2008-50-SC Punjab Fibres Ltd. Vs CCCE, Noida	no power for condonation of delay in filing reference application-proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Central Excise Act
AIT-2008-62-SC Munjal Sales Corporation Vs CIT, Ludhiana	whether Section 40(b) of the 1961 Act is a stand-alone section or whether it operates as a limitation to the deduction under Sections 30 to 38 of the 1961 Act?
AIT-2008-63-SC M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC	If the Consideration Clause indicates that the importer/buyer had adjusted the price of the imported goods in guise of enhanced royalty or if the Department finds that the buyer had misled the Department by such pricing adjustments then the adjudicating authority would be justified in adding the royalty/licence fees payment to the price of the imported goods
AIT-2008-64-SC M/s WEP Peripherals Ltd Vs. CC, Chennai	there is nothing to indicate that royalty payment was a condition pre-requisite to the sale of shuttle. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the appellant had received a bulk order for which it gave a price discount. The royalty payment was not based on value. The royalty was payable at the rate of $ 50/70 per piece. In view of the law laid down by us in M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant succeeds.
AIT-2008-68-SC White Machines Vs CCE, Delhi	Since, there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding marketability, excise duty could not be levied on the intermediary product
AIT-2008-69-SC Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd Vs DCIT, Ujjain	dividend income derived by the assessee from a company in Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Act
AIT-2008-70-SC M/s. Goa Carbon Ltd Vs. CTT	transaction of transfer of the right to use was a local sale under Section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948
AIT-2008-71-SC M/s Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd Vs CIT Chennai	Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the Department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits, the Department can insist on substitution of the existing method.
AIT-2008-72-SC M/s. Scan Synthetics Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur	assessable value of the captively consumed grey yarn would be on the basis of the price at which the grey yarn was sold by the assessee to unrelated buyers in wholesale at the factory gate
AIT-2008-75-SC M/s. Vinayaga Body Building Indus. Ltd Vs. CCE	manufacturers of chassis in their invoices placed the said goods under Sub-Heading 8706.29. Appellant, however, classified the said motor cabs under Sub-Heading 8702.90 which has been specified for payment of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) at one per cent for period 1.03.2003 to 30.09.2003. duty was not paid
AIT-2008-76-SC M/s. Lohia Sheet Products Vs. CC, New Delhi	scrap imported by the appellants is chargeable to 'NIL' rate of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975
AIT-2008-77-SC M/s Bharjatiya Steel Industries Vs. CST, U.P.	Sales Tax-9.47% of total amount of scrap purchased could not be utilized by it. It sold the said goods to other dealers at a concessional rate of tax. appellant for the purpose of obtaining tax concession in terms of Section 4-B(2) of the Act furnished an undertaking to utilize the entire material for manufacturing purposes, which was breached by reason of said transfer, a proceeding for levy of penalty was initiated
AIT-2008-78-SC Rexnord Electronics and Controls Ltd Vs. UOI	Customs-Interpretation of the provisions of Section 127A read with Section 127H of the Customs Act
AIT-2008-82-SC Geo Tech Foundations & Construction Vs CCE, Pune	As the facts alleged to have been suppressed were known to the department,Invocation of Section 11-A, was impermissible
AIT-2008-83-SC Dugar Tetenal India Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur	brand name "Tetenal" belonged to M/s Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany-the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification
AIT-2008-84-SC MMK Jewellers & Another Vs CC, Mumbai	in case where assessees are not guilty of suppression of facts, collusion or wilful misstatement of facts, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked under proviso to section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962
AIT-2008-85-SC E. Micheal Raj Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB	narcotic drug found in possession is 60 gms.The quantity of 60 gms. is lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than the small quantity and, thus, the appellant would be punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act
AIT-2008-86-SC Orient Traders Vs. CTO, Tirupati	exemption notifications are to be construed strictly. If the intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, then it is not open to the courts to add words in exemption notification to extend the benefit to other items which do not find mention in notification. Intention of State Government is clear that only gold bullion and specie is entitled to concessional rate of tax- same cannot be extended to silver
AIT-2008-87-SC M/s. Perfect Synthetics Vs State of Punjab	Whether assessee is entitled to deduction, from gross turnover, the purchase value of raw-material which assessee bought from exempted units? the words "subjected to tax" cannot be equated to the words "having suffered tax"
AIT-2008-88-SC M/s Samtel India Ltd Vs State of Haryana	whether respondent was entitled to addition of Colour Monitors in eligibility certificate entitling it to sales tax exemption under rule 28A of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules for manufacture of monochrome monitors& black and white TV sets?
AIT-2008-91-SC Xpro India Ltd Vs. CIT	Whether High Court was right in allowing credit for MAT, u/s. 115 JAA before charging interest U/S 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act
AIT-2008-92-SC Kraftech Products Inc Vs CCE, Vapi	MRP valuation under Section 4A of Central Excise Act on "multi piece package"

SC-2008 Page 2 SC-2008 Page 3 SC-2008 Main Page