« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Delhi HC Rules GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without a Clear Show Cause Notice (SCN)  Belated income tax return AY 2026-27: How to file, late filing charges and what you may lose  Major Financial Changes from August 1, 2026: ITR Deadline, RBI MPC Meeting, Tatkal Ticket Rules & More  Government proposes to ease tax relief conditions for offshore funds  TallyPrime Connected Banking: Automating Banking and Accounting  ITR Filing Deadline 2026: Is July 31 the Last Date to File Your Income Tax Return? Latest Official Update  ITR filing deadline nears: How to file income tax return online on e-filing portal - quick 15-step guide  Will the ITR Filing Deadline Be Extended Beyond July 31 for FY 2025-26? Here's the Latest Update for Taxpayers  Income Tax Refund Delayed for AY 2026-27? 5 Common Reasons Your Refund May Be Stuck and How to Fix It  ITR Filing 2026: FM Nirmala Sitharaman Asks Tax Officials to Let Honest Taxpayers Correct Genuine Mistakes  Will Your FCNR Deposit Stay Tax-Free After Returning to India? Tax Rules Explained for NRIs «  I-T form rules could prove troublesome to taxpayers... Postal deposits may lose TDS exemption... » Carrier Aircon wins excise case July, 10th 2006 The Supreme Court last week dismissed an appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, and upheld the contention of Carrier Aircon Ltd that the chillers it manufactured for central air-conditioning systems were entitled to a lower duty.    The revenue authorities contended that chillers are integral to the air conditioning systems used in big hotels, airports or hospitals. On the other hand, the company argued that the primary function of the chiller is to produce chilled water/liquid.    The excise appellate tribunal accepted the manufacturer's contention. The Supreme Court upheld that view and explained that air-conditioning system was just one among various industrial applications in relation to which chillers are used.    Further, it said that the end use to which a product is put to, by itself, could not be determinative of the classification of the product.    Mumbai firms to vacate premises    The Supreme Court last week dismissed a large number of appeals by Mumbai firms challenging the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.    The Bombay High Court had already dismissed the petitions moved by Crawford Bayley & Co, Nusli Wadia and others occupying prime property in the metropolis.    Their appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed following the earlier rulings of the apex court on tenancy of public premises. The court asked the estate officer to proceed with these matters speedily.    Subsidies for prestigious units    The Supreme Court has held that Jai Beverages Pvt Ltd was entitled to all the incentives and subsidies applicable to prestigious units under the industrial policy announced by the Jammu and Kashmir government in 1998.    The government had offered a package of incentives to industrial units, especially those which invested Rs 25 crore or more. The incentives included exemption from payment of general sales tax and central sales tax.    This company manufactured soft drinks and was declared a prestigious unit. However, when it claimed the benefits under the package, the government denied them. The high court dismissed its petition and upheld the government's view.    The company moved SC, which overruled the high court and emphasised that the company had fulfilled the conditions for the exemption. The state cannot be permitted to ignore its own conscious decision to permit it to invest Rs 25 crore by the deadline, the court said.