the process of testing the customised F&S machines is inextricably connected with the manufacturing process, in as much as, until this process is carried out in terms of the afore-extracted covenant in the purchase order, the manufacturing process is not complete; the machines are not fit for sale and hence not marketable at the factory gate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the manufacturing process in the present case gets completed on testing of the said machines and hence, the afore-stated goods viz. the flexible plastic films used for testing the F&S machines are inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the final product and would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules

RCO was not to be used in the factory of the appellant but at the place of generation of electricity by the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Hence, the second condition laid down in the proviso was also to be complied with. As the procedure laid down in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules has not been complied with, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption of excise duty under the exemption notification during the period from 01.01.1996 to 25.06.1996

the process of mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount to manufacture. Both the lower authorities have found as a fact that the said process merely resulted in the improvement of quality of bitumen. Bitumen remained bitumen. There was no change in the characteristics or identity of bitumen and only its grade or quality was improved. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for constructing the roads.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 22.04.2008, Essar was given the benefit of Sales Tax incentive under the Government of Gujarat “Capital Investment Incentive to Premier/Prestigious Unit Scheme, 1995-2000”

the Offshore Transaction herein is a bonafide structured FDI investment into India which fell outside India's territorial tax jurisdiction, hence not taxable. The said Offshore Transaction evidences participative investment and not a sham or tax avoidant preordained transaction. The said Offshore Transaction was between HTIL (a Cayman Islands company) and VIH (a company incorporated in Netherlands).  The subject matter of the Transaction was the transfer of the CGP (a company incorporated in Cayman Islands). Consequently, the Indian Tax Authority had no territorial tax jurisdiction to tax the said Offshore Transaction.

The Corporation is having its duty free shops at all major International Airports in India. At the said duty free shops, the appellant sells several articles including liquor to foreigners and also to Indians, who are going abroad or coming to India by air

Full Bench: In view of this Court's Order in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P) Ltd., upholding the judgment of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.,  the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgments of the ITAT in these cases stand affirmed.

Full Bench: while the face value of the DEPB will fall under clause (iiib) of Section 28 of the Act, the difference between the sale value and the face value of the DEPB will fall under clause (iiid) of Section 28 of the Act and the High Court was not right in taking the view in the impugned judgment that the entire sale proceeds of the DEPB realized on transfer of the DEPB and not just the difference between the sale value and the face value of the DEPB represent profit on transfer of the DEPB.

Full Bench: it was not necessary to refer to the explanatory Memorandum when the language of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC was clear that only ninety per cent of receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits computed under the head profits and gains of business of an assessee could be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) and not ninety per cent of the quantum of any of the aforesaid receipts which are allowed as expenses and therefore not included in the profits of business of the assessee.

whether the Assessee was merely a processor of ‘Glucon-D’, independent of Heinz or it was related to Heinz. In other words, whether the relationship between the Assessee and Heinz was one of principal to principal or that of an agent and principal. As aforesaid, the stand of the revenue is that the Assessee, as the processor, is not independent of Heinz

whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee(s) is eligible for deduction of the bad and doubtful debts actually written off in view of Section 36(1)(vii) which limits the deduction allowable under the proviso to the excess over the credit balance made under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 

Slagwool and Rockwool are appropriately classifiable under Sub-heading No.6807.10 of the tariff entry

Aluminium grills cannot fit into Item 7 of the Product Code 61 of the DEPB Schedule in order to claim benefit of the DEPB Scheme

the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court.

merely because the assessee, maybe, by mistake pays duty on the goods which are exempted from such payment, does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for duty under the Act. Secondly, merely because the assessee has not claimed any refund on the duty paid by him would not come in the way of claiming benefit of the Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.86

How far deductions are allowable under rule 9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 for trade discounts?

whether penalty and interest can be levied and collected when the duty has been paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The appellants herein are successful bidders. When they were demanded to pay the taxes under the VAT Act, they thought it fit to approach the High Court by filing a petition/appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents/revenue to treat the sales, made by the Federation in favour of the appellants as purely inter-state sale and, therefore, not exigible for the levy of tax under the VAT Act.

classification of two products viz. ‘Povidone Iodine Cleansing Solution USP and Wokadine Surgical Scrub for the purpose of levy of duty under the provisions of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

It is a settled proposition in a fiscal or taxation law that while ascertaining the scope or expressions used in a particular entry, the opinion of the expert in the field of trade, who deals in those goods, should not be ignored, rather it should be given due importance.

Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulates that on demitting office as Member of CESTAT a person shall not be entitled to appear before the CESTAT, is not ultra vires the Constitution of India

whether the finished goods manufactured by the 100% EOU out of the raw material supplied by another 100% EOU, and subsequently, cleared in the DTA in accordance with the EXIM Policy 1997-2002 are entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided under the Notification No.8/97-CE, dated 1.3.1997.

Full Bench: We find no merit in the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Service Tax: whether under the relevant clause 9.3 of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, the appellant was right in deducting the service tax from the bills of the respondent and, (ii) secondly, whether the interpretation of this clause and the consequent award rendered by the arbitrator was against the terms of the contract and therefore illegal as held by the High Court, or whether the view taken by the arbitrator was a possible, if not a plausible view.

SC upholds Delhi HC Ruling in case of Nalwa Sons Investment Limited - it is the deemed income assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act which has become the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act. Hence, when the computation was made under Section 115 JB of the Act, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all.