Bernard m. Managing Partner of Miracle Logistics v. Commissioner of Service tax [ST/STAY/256/2007 IN ST/374/2007]   Section 76, read with section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Penalty - For failure to pay service tax - Assistant Commissioner had dropped issue pertaining to levy of penalty on assessee under section 76 - However, on review Commissioner had imposed penalty of Rs. 100 per day in terms of section 76 - Whether since in act similar matters stay had been granted instant stay application was to be allowed by granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount - Held, yes [Para 4] More
Bhootpurva Sainik Society v. Commissioner of Central Excise [IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2006]   Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Payment of service tax - Whether where assessee was only working for economic and social welfare of ex-servicemen and was not a commercial concern pre-deposit of service tax demanded and penalty payable buy it was to be waived - Held, yes [Para 1] More
Bombay Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 1996]   Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Claim for refund of duty - Period from 27-9-1979 to 28-2-1994 - Whether proceedings before assistant collector adjudicating claim for refund of duty are of quasi judicial nature - Held, yes - Whether judicial or quasi judicial order becomes final binding and effective as soon as it is made or passed and it’s finality is subject to Appeal or Revision only and it is not dependent on communication of order to concerned party - Held, yes - Pursuant to a order of Supreme Court assessee became entitled for refund of excise duty paid on exempted products - Assessee, accordingly filed refund claim - Asstt. Collector (excise) vide was order dated 22-3-1998 sanctioned part of refund claim and credited balance claim to consumer welfare funds on finding that duty paid by assessee for that period had been passed to customers - Subsequent to that order Respondent No. 2, Asstt. Commissioner (Audit) Passed impugned order dated 12-10-1995 rejecting refund sanctioned to assessee on ground that during pre-audit it was found that assessee had passed over liability of excise duty to customers - Assessee filed instant writ challenging said order on ground that order dated 22-3-1995 was binding on department - Department contended that order dated 22-03-1995 was a draft order which was subject to pre-audit and as said order was not communicated to assessee by Department it was not entitled to any relief basis of alleged order dated 22-3-1995 - However it was found that before passing order dated 22-3-1998, Assistant Collector (excise) had directed that file be submitted to Additional Director (cost), to ascertain - Whether assessee had charged and recovered element of duty from its customers and after receiving a remark from him that assessee had not charged and recovered excise duty from customers during relevant period he had sanctioned said alleged refund - Whether after being satisfied that claim was justified, Assistant Collector passed order which became final and thereafter there could not be any pre-audit of order passed by Assistant collector - Held, yes - Whether in view of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. 1991(55) ELT 289 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held that order or decision of authority comes into force or order becomes operative or effective on and from date when it is signed by him, order dated 22-3-1995 became final, binding and effective as soon as it was signed by Assistant Collector - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, order dated 12-10-1995 was without jurisdiction and non-est and same was to be set aside and order dated 22-3-1995 was to be restored - Held, yes More