Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Finance (No.2) Act, 2004

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANYversusINCOME TAX OFFICER

2020 INSC 46829 July 2020Dismissed

Shree Choudhary Transport Company (the appellant) entered into a contract to transport cement for a consignor and hired independent truck operators to perform the work. The appellant received freight charges from the consignor after TDS was deducted, but failed to deduct TDS on payments to the truck operators where eac

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III, DELHI

2009 INSC 104717 August 2009Disposed off

Mis. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, generated electricity in its plant using naphtha and diesel and sold a portion of the surplus to its joint ventures, vendors and the grid for a price. The company claimed CENVAT credit on the duty paid on the fuel used for electricity generation, arguing that elect

IA. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI

2017 INSC 109210 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

SRD Nutrients Private Ltd, a manufacturer in Assam, claimed refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess paid along with excise duty on goods that were exempted from excise duty under Notification 20/2007‑CE dated 25‑Apr‑2007. The lower authorities and CESTAT held that the notification only exempted excise duty,

M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISESversusCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2006 INSC 5878 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Sneh Enterprises imported lead‑acid batteries from Taiwan, which landed in Mumbai on 16‑April‑2002 and were trans‑shipped to Delhi where the Bill of Entry was filed on 22‑May‑2002. On the same day the Central Government issued a notification under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposing an anti‑dumping duty

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS. ETC.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS. ETC.

2005 INSC 2595 May 2005

The Supreme Court examined whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when the statute mandates both imprisonment and fine. The appellants argued that because a company cannot be imprisoned, the provision could not apply to them. The Court

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search