|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1054 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1396
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The judgment primarily revolves around the following legal questions: - Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in allowing the deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act to the assessee?
- Whether the process undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacturing or production of any article or thing so as to be eligible for deduction under Section 80IB?
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80IB - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act provides deductions for profits and gains derived from certain industrial undertakings. The legal question hinges on whether the assessee's activities qualify as "manufacture" or "production."
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the processes involved in converting raw fish into tinned fish. It referred to previous judgments, including CIT v. Relish Foods and Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka, which held that mere processing does not constitute manufacturing.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the activities undertaken by the assessee did not result in a new and distinct commodity. The processed fish retained its original identity, similar to the findings in previous cases.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that a process must result in a commercially distinct product to qualify as manufacturing. The transformation of raw fish into tinned fish did not meet this criterion.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the process involved significant changes, including cooking and packaging, which should qualify as manufacturing. However, the court found these changes insufficient to alter the commodity's essential identity.
- Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessee's activities did not amount to manufacturing or production, thus disqualifying them from deductions under Section 80IB.
Issue 2: Consistency in Allowing Deductions - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of consistency in tax assessments was discussed, referencing M/s. Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, which suggests that a consistent position should not be altered without substantial reason.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the principle but emphasized that each assessment year is independent, allowing the Revenue to reassess the legal basis of deductions.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that previous acceptance of deductions did not preclude reevaluation, especially when higher authorities examined the case.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that each tax year stands alone, justifying the Revenue's decision to reassess the deduction claim.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that past acceptance of deductions should bind future assessments. The court disagreed, citing the need for legal consistency and correctness.
- Conclusions: The court held that the Revenue was not barred from reassessing the deduction claim, as each assessment year is distinct.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The broad principle which can be deduced from various judicial pronouncements on the subject is that it is only when a change or series of changes take the commodity subjected to such processes to a point where it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is instead recognised as a new and a distinct article, that such a process can be said to have resulted in 'manufacture' or 'production' of an article."
- Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that mere processing does not constitute manufacturing unless it results in a commercially distinct product.
- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the assessee's activities did not qualify as manufacturing or production under Section 80IB, and the Revenue was justified in reassessing the deduction claim.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1395
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 regarding adjustment of excess Service Tax paid, time limitation for demand issuance, applicability of Tribunal decision pre-1.3.2007.
Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The appellant, as recipient of GTA service, adjusted excess Service Tax paid towards their liability during specific months. The original authority held that such adjustment was not covered under Rule 6(3) and demanded the excess amount along with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, except for one penalty.
Time limitation for demand issuance:
The appellant argued that the demand issued was time-barred as the adjustment was appropriately informed in the returns. The appellant also cited a Tribunal decision allowing regularization pre-1.3.2007.
Applicability of Tribunal decision pre-1.3.2007:
The appellant contended that their case was covered by a Tribunal decision predating the relevant amendment. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the excess payment and its utilization for part payment of Service Tax, leading to a prima facie dismissal of the demand.
Final Decision:
Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 02.03.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1394
Issues involved: Appeal against order confirming levy of Tax & Interest u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for Assessment year 2002-03.
Issue 1 - Default u/s 201(1)/201(1A):
The AO found the assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for not deducting tax at source on interest payment to M/s. Globe International. The assessee argued it was a reimbursement for utilizing L.C. limit, not interest income of M/s. Globe International. However, the AO held the assessee liable for TDS under section 194A. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing the nature of payment over nomenclature. Various case laws were cited to support the default of TDS and the mandatory nature of interest u/s 201(1A). The AR's contention on time limit under section 275 was rejected, stating no limitation for action u/s 201/201(1A).
Issue 2 - Appeal and Modification:
The assessee appealed, arguing the order was bad in law, barred by limitation, and the tax interest levied was excessive. After hearing both sides, it was observed that the assessee defaulted only on a portion of the amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the tax and interest due on the correct amount of &8377; 49,20,681/- u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively, allowing the appeal in part.
In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the order, directing the re-computation of tax and interest due on the correct amount, thereby partially allowing the assessee's appeal.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1393
Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest income on fixed deposits forms part of profits and gains of business or profession for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Effect of insertion of clause (baa) in the Explanation to Section 80HHC by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. 1.4.1992.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interest Income as Part of Business Profits:
The primary issue was whether interest income on fixed deposits made by the assessee using surplus funds qualifies as business income under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the export of handicrafts, claimed this interest income as part of business profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer, however, categorized this interest as "income from other sources," thus excluding it from the deduction calculation.
The Tribunal, relying on the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Isher Dass Mahajan and Sons [2002] 253 ITR 284 (P&H), ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the provisions of Clause (baa) to the Explanation to Section 80HHC did not apply to assessment years prior to 1992-93. The High Court, however, emphasized that interest income from surplus funds, unless directly linked to business activities like securing overdrafts or credit limits, should be treated as "income from other sources." The Court cited various judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ravi Ratna Exports (P) Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 443 (Bom) and the Kerala High Court in Abad Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] 253 ITR 319 (Ker), which supported this view.
2. Effect of Clause (baa) in Explanation to Section 80HHC:
The second issue revolved around the impact of the insertion of clause (baa) in the Explanation to Section 80HHC by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991, effective from 1.4.1992. This clause aimed to exclude 90% of certain incomes, including interest, from the profits of the business for the purpose of calculating deductions under Section 80HHC. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind this amendment was to ensure that only the profits directly derived from export activities were eligible for deduction, thereby excluding incomes that did not have a direct nexus with export activities.
The Court referenced the CBDT Circular No. 559 dated 4th May 1990, which clarified that the amendment aimed to rationalize the provisions of Section 80HHC and remove anomalies by substituting "profits" for "whole of the income." The Court also cited the Bombay High Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bangalore Clothing Co. [2003] 260 ITR 371 (Bom), which emphasized that receipts not directly linked to business operations should be excluded from business profits for deduction purposes.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that interest income from surplus funds, unless directly linked to business operations, should be categorized as "income from other sources" and not included in business profits for Section 80HHC deductions. The insertion of clause (baa) further clarified that 90% of such incomes should be excluded from business profits for deduction calculations. The Tribunal's decision to allow the interest income as part of business profits was thus erroneous. The appeals were allowed in favor of the revenue, and the questions of law were answered accordingly.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1392
Issues Involved: Determination of levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act and justification of sustaining addition to the extent of 25% made by the Assessing Officer in relation to the cost of construction of a hospital building.
Levy of Interest u/s 234B:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the ground raised regarding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, stating that it is mandatory and consequential in nature.
Sustainability of Addition to Cost of Construction:
The Assessing Officer had made an addition to the cost of construction of a hospital building due to discrepancies between the figures disclosed by the assessee and those estimated by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) sustained an addition of 25% of the original amount. The assessee contended that the books of account were maintained properly and the addition was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that the DVO's report highlighted deficiencies in the records provided by the assessee, leading to the need for further valuation. While the CIT(A) had already reduced the addition by 75%, the Tribunal found no grounds for further interference, considering the construction was done over several years and the need for technical guidance in valuing the building. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition to the cost of construction of the hospital building.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1391
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order directing to levy long term capital gains based on ITAT decision in T.Suresh Gowda case.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore heard appeals by the revenue against the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore's orders for the assessment year 2005-06 concerning two assessees. The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s direction to levy long term capital gains as per the assessee's claim, following the ITAT decision in T.Suresh Gowda case. The revenue had not accepted the ITAT decision and had filed an appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with the High Court of Karnataka. The assessees, individuals declaring agricultural income, had sold non-agricultural land without declaring it as capital gains. The AO taxed the land under capital gains during assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) found that the land was not used for non-agricultural purpose within the stipulated time after conversion, rendering the conversion order null and void. Citing the ITAT decision in T.Suresh Gowda case, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the revenue's appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that as long as the ITAT's order was not suspended or stayed by the High Court, there was no reason to interfere. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed on 28th February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1390
Issues: Disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 6,75,41,495 and consideration of contractual workers for fulfilling the condition of minimum number of workers u/s 80IB.
The appeal pertained to the disallowance of a deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 6,75,41,495 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) required the assessee, engaged in manufacturing essential oils, to employ 10 or more workers in the manufacturing process. The A.O. disallowed the claim as the number of workers employed was 8 or 9, falling short of the requirement. The assessee contended that casual workers should be included in the count, but the A.O. rejected this argument.
On appeal, the CIT(A) considered the inclusion of contract labor and workers involved in purchasing raw materials. The CIT(A) observed that workers engaged in various processes integral to manufacturing should be counted. Referring to legal precedents, the CIT(A) held that workers involved in the entire manufacturing process, from raw material procurement to finished goods, should be considered employed in the manufacturing process. The CIT(A) concluded that the A.O. erred in disallowing the claim.
During the hearing, the CIT DR argued that the contractual workers did not establish an employer-employee relationship with the assessee, thus not fulfilling the conditions of Section 80IB(2)(iv). Conversely, the A.R. supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the holistic consideration of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had engaged 10 or more workers in certain months, including contractual labor and staff for raw material purchase, meeting the statutory requirement. Citing legal interpretations, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction u/s 80IB. The judgment was pronounced on 18th Feb., 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1389
Issues involved:
The petitioner sought orders to process two consignments of crude palm oil to conform to standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and permit clearance. The main issue was whether the consignments could be reprocessed to meet the required standards within the Customs area.
Details of the judgment:
1. Processing of Crude Palm Oil:
- The petitioner purchased two consignments of crude palm oil which did not conform to standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- The Central Food Laboratory's report indicated non-conformance, leading to non-release of the consignments.
- The petitioner requested permission to reprocess the oil to meet the standards.
2. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
- Mr. Chowdhury cited previous cases where reprocessing of imported goods was allowed to meet standards.
- Reference was made to the proviso of Section 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding the forfeiture of property and reprocessing capability.
3. Court's Decision:
- The Court acknowledged previous orders allowing reprocessing of goods to meet standards under specific circumstances.
- However, in this case, the Court was not convinced that the crude palm oil could be reprocessed within the Customs area to meet the required standards.
- The Court highlighted the necessity to take goods out of the Customs area for reprocessing edible articles.
- As the petitioner did not provide a plan for reprocessing within the Customs area, the Court dismissed the writ application.
The judgment emphasized the importance of demonstrating the feasibility of reprocessing goods within the Customs area to meet prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1388
Issues involved: Initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
The appeals by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2000-01 & 2001-02 were disposed of by a common order of Ld. CIT(A)- XXIX, New Delhi due to a common issue. The first issue for consideration was the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The assessments for the mentioned years were made initially on 07.03.2005, and the A.O. reinitiated assessment proceedings on 26.03.2007. The A.O. assessed royalty at 30% in the reassessment proceedings, which was challenged by the assessee.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the assessment on the grounds of reopening of assessment and on merits. It was argued that the notice issued u/s 148 for both years was barred by limitation, and the A.O. did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the same material available on record, amounting to a change of opinion, and therefore, were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal observed that the material for the reassessment was available and considered during the original assessment. As there was no specific recording of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee, the assessments made in 2007 were deemed bad in law. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for both years.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the assessments for the mentioned years.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1387
Issues involved: Petition seeking quashing of recovery notice for sales tax dues from a surety.
Summary:
In C.W.P. No.3492 of 1992, the petitioner sought to quash a recovery notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Department for sales tax dues, as the petitioner had stood surety in case of default by the dealer. The petitioner argued that the recovery proceedings were illegal as the period of surety had expired, and notice of withdrawal was given. The State contended that unilateral withdrawal with retrospective effect was impermissible, and the liability being enforced related to the period before the surety expired. The Court noted that the recovery period was covered by the surety, and giving notice of withdrawal was not sufficient to absolve the petitioner of liability. Citing legal precedents, the Court held that the guarantor was liable for dues prior to dissolution of the firm and up to six months after cancellation of the surety bond. The Court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment stating that proceeding against the principal debtor before the guarantor was not necessary. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to quash the recovery notice.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1386
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid under protest - assessee is manufacturing cold rolled strips and paid duty under the provisions of the Act. Later, application for refund was filed on the ground that for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1998, duty was not payable and was wrongly paid.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1385
Issues involved: Appeal against order deleting addition for interest-free advance to subsidiary company u/s 40A(2)(b) and u/s 37(1) for bank charges.
Issue 1 - Interest-free advance to subsidiary company:
- AO proposed disallowing interest on advances to subsidiary companies.
- Assessee explained business purpose for advances, but AO disallowed interest.
- CIT(A) decided in favor of assessee citing S.A.Builders case.
- Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision as AO did not rebut business purpose explanation.
- Ground No.1 dismissed.
Issue 2 - Excess price paid for purchase of comber cotton waste u/s 40A(2)(b):
- AO disallowed 10% of purchases from sister concern under section 40A(2)(b).
- CIT(A) found purchases comparable to those from outside parties, deleted disallowance.
- Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s decision as Department failed to rebut findings.
- Ground No.2 dismissed.
Issue 3 - Expenditure of capital nature shown as bank charges u/s 37(1):
- AO disallowed bank charges as capital expenditure.
- Assessee claimed charges for working capital, similar expenses incurred yearly.
- CIT(A) deleted disallowance based on recurring nature of expenses.
- Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s decision as Department did not rebut findings.
- Ground No.3 dismissed.
General: Ground Nos.4 and 5 are general in nature and not independently adjudicated.
The appeal filed by the Department against the order deleting additions for interest-free advance to subsidiary company, excess price paid for purchase of comber cotton waste, and bank charges was dismissed by the Tribunal on 28 February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1384
Whether the High Court could interfere with the order of the trial Court without considering the question whether the said order was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the application of the respondents and the order passed by it has resulted in failure of justice?
Whether a litigant filing the list of witnesses is bound to indicate, howsoever briefly, the relevance of the witness to the subject matter of the suit etc., and, in any case, one party to the proceedings cannot cite the advocate representing the other side as a witness and thereby deprive the latter of the services of the advocate without disclosing as to how his testimony is relevant to the issues arising in the case?
-
2011 (2) TMI 1383
Legal judgment by Supreme Court with citation 2011 (2) TMI 1383 - SC Order, by Justices D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu. Appeal has been admitted.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1382
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the assessment year 2005-06 and the applicability of deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main issue is whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, leading to a revision u/s 263.
Assessment of Eligibility for Deduction u/s 10A:
The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction u/s 10A for the assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in electronic data transmission. However, the ld. CIT found errors in the order, stating that the unit did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 10A(2)(i)(b) and (i)(c) as it was not operating in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and did not start production in an SEZ. The CIT concluded that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests.
Grounds Raised by the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the CIT's opinion regarding the unit needing to be in an SEZ for deduction u/s 10A was incorrect. The assessee argued that the unit fulfilled the conditions of being an existing unit and was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business. Reference was made to circulars and ITAT decisions supporting the eligibility for deduction.
Analysis of Revisional Power u/s 263:
The judgment delves into the revisional power conferred on the CIT u/s 263, emphasizing that the order can be revised only if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Various principles regarding the CIT's powers under section 263 were discussed, highlighting the need for fairness, consideration of relevant facts, and the limitation on revising orders.
Confirmation of Revision by ITAT:
Upon detailed examination of the evidence and the assessment order, the ITAT found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the legal position, rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT's revision and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed the revision made by the CIT under section 263, highlighting the importance of applying legal provisions correctly and considering all relevant factors in assessments to avoid errors prejudicial to the Revenue.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1381
Issues involved: Determination of whether income from sale and purchase of shares should be treated as Short Term Capital Gain or business income.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) regarding the treatment of income from sale and purchase of shares. The assessing officer contended that the activities of the assessee in buying and selling shares indicated a business activity rather than capital gains. The assessee argued that the shares were held as investments, not for business purposes. The ld. CIT (Appeals) examined the details provided by the assessee and concluded that the profits earned on share transactions should be treated as short term capital gains, not business income.
The Revenue argued that profits on share sales should be considered business income due to the volume of transactions and turnover. The assessee maintained that they were long-term investors and the shares were valued at cost price. The Tribunal found that the shares were held as investments, not stock-in-trade, based on the assessee's consistent practice over eight years. The profits from most shares sold within a year were treated as short term capital gains, except for shares bought and sold on the same day, which were deemed speculative transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (Appeals)'s decision to treat the transactions as short term capital gains, except for same-day transactions classified as speculative profits. The appeal filed by the Revenue was decided accordingly.
Judgement by K. D. RANJAN, AM: The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the share transactions and upheld the treatment of most profits as short term capital gains, except for same-day transactions considered speculative. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1380
Issues:
Challenge to orders imposing penalty by Settlement Commission under Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of paints, challenged the orders passed by the Settlement Commission imposing a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs each on both petitioners. The petitioners voluntarily made an application for settlement before the Commission under section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, paying the entire duty amount of Rs. 51,76,676. The Commission, in its order dated 08th October, 2007, accepted the settlement application but imposed an additional penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs each on both petitioners. The petitioners approached the High Court, and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration on the penalty aspect. Subsequently, the Commission confirmed its earlier view on penalty in the order dated 31st December, 2009.
2. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the Commission's decision, filed another petition before the High Court, seeking to withdraw it to approach the Settlement Commission again. The Commission, in the impugned order dated 16th September, 2010, dismissed the petitioners' application for amendment/modification, stating it lacked the power to overrule its earlier orders. The petitioners challenged this decision in the present petition.
3. The petitioners argued that the Commission's order dated 31st December, 2009, contained mistakes as it did not provide reasons for deviating from the normal practice of levying penalty. They contended that under section 11AC of the Act, the penalty should have been limited to 25% of the duty amount since they had paid the entire duty before the Commission's order. The petitioners claimed that the Commission erred in rejecting their rectification application.
4. The High Court noted that the Settlement Commission had adequately discussed and distinguished the decisions cited by the petitioners in its order dated 31st December, 2009. The Commission provided reasons for not reducing the penalty amount in paragraph 16 of the order. The Court held that even if the Commission's view was considered erroneous, it did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, and thus, there was no basis for rectification.
5. The Court also addressed the challenge to the earlier orders dated 08th October, 2007, and 31st December, 2009, stating that since these orders were already subject to challenge in the previous petition, a fresh petition on the same subject matter was not maintainable. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments for interference with the Commission's orders.
6. Consequently, the High Court summarily dismissed the petition, upholding the Settlement Commission's decisions on the penalty imposed on the petitioners.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1379
Cement- Exemption- Declaration of retail sale price. Contention of Revenue that retail sale price affixed to avail concessional rate of duty prescribed in the Notification No. 4/2007-C.E. - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-III Versus SAGAR CEMENTS LTD. [2010 (4) TMI 418 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that requirement of not printing of retail sale price not applicable to the respondent as goods sold to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. By indicating the price at which it was contracted - Held that: - appeal dismissed - the decision in the above case upheld.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1378
The petitioner was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. A notice for reassessment was issued, leading to two dismissed writ petitions. The petitioner filed for supply of documents and cross-examination, which is pending. The High Court stated that the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity in the reassessment proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1377
Issues:
1. Reduction of pre-deposit requirement by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Consideration of financial hardship plea by the Tribunal.
3. Evaluation of supporting documents for financial hardship plea.
4. Appeal decision based on pre-deposit compliance.
Reduction of Pre-Deposit Requirement by CESTAT:
The petitioners, who were directed to pay customs duty and related charges amounting to Rs. 1,75,00,000, appealed against the decision. The liability was partially reduced on appeal, but the petitioners were still dissatisfied and approached CESTAT seeking further relief. Initially, their request for waiver of pre-deposit was not accepted by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a modification application was filed, resulting in the Tribunal reducing the pre-deposit from Rs. 1.25 crores to Rs. 75,00,000 and granting a 10-week period for compliance.
Consideration of Financial Hardship Plea:
The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that they were facing financial hardship, supported by documents such as audit reports, balance sheets, and financial statements indicating significant losses in the preceding years. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the plea citing lack of concrete evidence. The department's counsel also argued against delving into the financial hardship claim without substantial proof.
Evaluation of Supporting Documents for Financial Hardship Plea:
Upon reviewing the records and documents submitted by the petitioners, the Court found that while the initial waiver application lacked supporting documents, the subsequent modification application contained relevant financial statements. The Court acknowledged the financial difficulties faced by the petitioners, considering their losses and the disputed nature of the duty liability, leading to a reduction in the pre-deposit requirement to Rs. 30,00,000, with a deadline set for compliance by 30.4.2011.
Appeal Decision Based on Pre-Deposit Compliance:
In light of the reduced pre-deposit amount and the petitioners' financial circumstances, the Court directed that if the pre-deposit was made by the specified date, the appeal would be adjudicated on its merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of based on the revised pre-deposit terms, ensuring a fair consideration of the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
