|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1070 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 836
Issues:
1. Whether the service provider is entitled to claim reimbursement of service tax from the consumer.
2. Interpretation of Clause 10.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) in relation to service tax liability.
3. Validity of Clause 10.2 in light of the Finance Act and Indian Contract Act.
4. Impact of contract extension on reimbursement of service tax.
Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case is whether the service provider can claim reimbursement of service tax from the consumer. The judgment discusses the responsibility of the assessee to collect service tax and the consequences of failing to do so. It highlights that while the service provider can pass on the tax liability to the customer, there is no legal restriction on quoting a rate inclusive of service tax. The court emphasizes that the contractor, having agreed to bear the service tax liability, cannot later demand reimbursement from the consumer.
Issue 2:
The interpretation of Clause 10.2 of the NIT is crucial in determining the service tax liability. The clause explicitly states that the contractor is responsible for all tax liabilities, including service tax. The court notes that the contractor knowingly quoted a rate inclusive of service tax, indicating acceptance of this liability. Therefore, the contractor cannot subsequently seek reimbursement from the consumer.
Issue 3:
The validity of Clause 10.2 is assessed in light of the Finance Act and the Indian Contract Act. The court rejects the argument that the clause violates the Finance Act, emphasizing that the contractor's liability to pay service tax remains unaffected even if the tax is not collected from the consumer. Additionally, the court dismisses the claim that the clause is contrary to the Indian Contract Act, as it does not fall under any of the unlawful considerations outlined in Section 23 of the Act.
Issue 4:
The impact of the contract extension on the reimbursement of service tax is examined. The court clarifies that parties to a contract can mutually modify its terms, as evidenced by the new work order issued upon contract extension. The reimbursement of service tax in the extended period does not imply liability for the previous period. The court concludes that the contractor is not entitled to claim a refund of service tax and allows the writ appeal, setting aside the judgment of the single Judge.
Overall, the judgment emphasizes the contractual obligations regarding service tax liability, the validity of contract clauses in relation to tax laws, and the implications of contract extensions on reimbursement claims.
-
2013 (5) TMI 835
Issues involved: Request for recall of Final Order and rehearing of the case due to non-appearance of the appellant during the final hearing.
Summary:
1. The appellant filed an application requesting a personal hearing to recall a Final Order passed by the Bench and rehear the case. The appeal was heard on 8-10-2012, but the appellant did not appear, and the appeal was dismissed on merits. The appellant's consultant now seeks restoration of the appeal based on certain reasons.
2. The consultant for the appellant explained that the hearing notice was received late, and due to various reasons, he could not appear before the Tribunal on the scheduled date. However, the Superintendent (AR) found the explanation unsatisfactory and noted the absence of a specific prayer for recall of the Final Order in the application.
3. While some difficulties faced by the appellant are acknowledged, the Tribunal found the explanation regarding the unavailability of alternative means of transport for the consultant to be unacceptable. The Final Order passed on merits cannot be recalled without proper grounds, especially when the appeal is appealable.
4. The consultant requested restoration of the appeal, but it was clarified that an appeal dismissed on merits cannot be restored. Exceptional reasons must be provided for the recall of a Final Order passed on merits, which were not present in this case.
5. Consequently, the application for recall and rehearing of the case was rejected by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (5) TMI 834
Computing deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- The expenditure on foreign travel and telecommunication should be reduced both from the export turnover and the total turnover of the assessee.
Determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transaction of software development service by making upward transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- Lower authorities were not justified in not excluding profit or loss in respect of domestic transactions for determining the profit declared by the assessee in respect of AE transactions. They were not justified in adopting the profit level achieved by the assessee in respect of all its transactions including domestic transactions as the profit level declared in respect of AE transactions. Further, we find that the assessee had furnished separately its working of the profit declared by it in respect of its AE transactions before the TPO as well as before the DRP. The lower authorities could not point out any specific defect in the said working of the assessee. As per the said working of the assessee, the assessee claimed to have earned a profit level of 34.17% of the cost in respect of AE transactions. Before us also, the ld. CIT/DR could not point out any specific defect in this working of the assessee.
There is no legal requirement that the segmentwise working submitted before the TPO should be audited by the assessee’s CA. Moreover, it is not open to the Revenue to reject the working prepared by the assessee without pointing out any error therein. In absence of any error being pointed out in the working shown by the assessee wherein it has claimed that it has achieved a profit level of 34.17% of the cost in respect of transactions with AE, we have no option but to accept the same.
the rate of profit achieved in other comparable cases are to be compared with profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions after excluding domestic transactions. Therefore, on comparing the same, we find that the profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions is more than the profit level in respect of comparable cases found by the TPO. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, the lower authorities were not justified in making addition to the income of the assessee. the rate of profit achieved in other comparable cases are to be compared with profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions after excluding domestic transactions. Therefore, on comparing the same, we find that the profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions is more than the profit level in respect of comparable cases found by the TPO. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, the lower authorities were not justified in making addition to the income of the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 833
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of District Magistrate to withdraw exemption of entertainment tax u/s 11(3) of UP Entertainment and Betting Tax Act 1979, remedy available to petitioner against orders passed by District Magistrate and State Government, review application dated 15.10.2002.
Jurisdiction of District Magistrate to withdraw exemption: The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate lacked authority to withdraw the exemption of entertainment tax as per the proviso to Section 11(3) of the UP Entertainment and Betting Tax Act 1979. The District Magistrate had issued an order on 10.7.2009 withdrawing the exemption and directing the petitioner to deposit the tax and penalties. The State Government rejected the petitioner's representation against these orders, stating that the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal u/s 12(2) of the Act 1979. The petitioner did not challenge the District Magistrate's order in appeal or in the present writ petition, leading to the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh one challenging the District Magistrate's order.
Remedy available to petitioner: The State Government rejected the petitioner's representation against the orders passed by the District Magistrate, directing the petitioner to file an appeal u/s 12(2) of the Act 1979. The petitioner did not pursue this remedy, leading to the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one challenging the District Magistrate's order.
Review application dated 15.10.2002: The petitioner had filed a review application dated 15.10.2002, seeking a direction for its decision by respondent no. 1. However, the petitioner did not challenge the District Magistrate's order in appeal or in the present writ petition, resulting in the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh one challenging the District Magistrate's order.
-
2013 (5) TMI 832
Canceling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) - Held that:- CIT was not justified in cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the IT Act. Section 12AA(3) of the Act empowers the ld. CIT to cancel such registration if he was satisfied that the activities of the trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or Institution, as the case may be. It is not in dispute that the objects of the assessee trust are to carry out the educational activities which are charitable in nature and that the assessee trust solely exists for educational purpose. Thus, the ld. CIT was satisfied that the activities of the assessee trust are genuine and that the same educational activities have been carried out as per the objects of the assessee trust. The ld. CIT admitted the same facts in para 9 of the impugned order reproduced above also. Furthermore, it is also not in dispute that in this case registration was granted u/s. 12A on 01.09.1997 w.e.f. 16.12.1995. Before 01.06.2010, section 12AA(3) nowhere empowers the ld. CIT to cancel or withdraw the registration u/s. 12A of the IT Act. In the absence of such power, registration granted u/s. 12A cannot be withdrawn or cancelled before 01.06.2010. In the present case, the ld. CIT in para 13 of the impugned order has cancelled the registration without giving the date from which date the cancellation of registration would be effective. Therefore, in the absence of any date from when the registration would be cancelled, the order of the ld. CIT cannot be sustained in law.
-
2013 (5) TMI 831
Issuance of SCN - the petitioners had waived the right of reply and issuance of show cause notice, however, petitioners stated that they were compelled to do so by the authority - Held that:- It is the mandate of law that before imposing any penalty and confiscation of goods, show cause notice with adequate opportunity of hearing must be given. Provisions of law cannot be said to have been waived by the petitioners - petitions are disposed of providing that the petitioners would be entitled to furnish reply to the impugned orders treating the same to be show cause notice.
-
2013 (5) TMI 830
Issues Involved:
1. Case of Circumstantial Evidence
2. Examination of Witnesses
3. Discrepancies in Depositions
4. Evidence of a Hostile Witness
5. Motive
6. Explanation of the Accused
7. Last Seen Together Theory
8. Police Official as a Witness
Detailed Analysis:
1. Case of Circumstantial Evidence:
The primary issue is determining the requirements for deciding a case based on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defense. The chain of evidence must be complete and exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
2. Examination of Witnesses:
The court addressed whether the prosecution is bound to examine all listed witnesses. It was held that the prosecution is not obligated to call all witnesses, and it is within the discretion of the public prosecutor to determine which witnesses to call. The court can draw adverse inferences if material witnesses are deliberately withheld, but the defense can also call such witnesses if necessary.
3. Discrepancies in Depositions:
Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies that do not affect the core of the prosecution's case should not lead to the rejection of evidence. The court must consider the evidence as a whole and ignore trivial inconsistencies that do not undermine the credibility of the witness.
4. Evidence of a Hostile Witness:
The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto. It can be accepted to the extent that it is found dependable upon careful scrutiny. The court can rely on portions of the testimony that are consistent with the prosecution's case.
5. Motive:
Motive is relevant in cases of circumstantial evidence. The motive driving the accused to commit the offense may be known only to the accused. If the evidence suggests the existence of a motive, it can support the conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
6. Explanation of the Accused:
The accused is obligated to furnish an explanation regarding incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A false or inadequate explanation can be considered a missing link in the chain of circumstances, supporting the prosecution's case.
7. Last Seen Together Theory:
When the accused is last seen with the deceased, it becomes their duty to explain the circumstances under which the death occurred. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation can lead to a strong presumption of guilt.
8. Police Official as a Witness:
The evidence of police officials should not be discarded merely because they are part of the investigating agency. Their testimony should be subject to strict scrutiny, and corroboration should be sought where possible. However, their evidence can be relied upon if found credible.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances, the last seen together theory, and the motive supported the conclusion of guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld.
-
2013 (5) TMI 829
Issues involved:
1. Whether the appellant's activity is taxable under the category of infrastructural support service.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund claim for Service Tax paid.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of the Appellant's Activity
The appellant, registered for Service Tax under various categories, including Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service, filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid during April 2008 to July 2008. The appellant contended that the activity performed by them is not taxable. The lower authority considered the activity to fall under infrastructural support service, a type of business support service, and rejected the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The agreement between the appellant and the Insurance Institute of India (III) revealed that the appellant provided services on behalf of III, indicating that the appellant's service was performed on behalf of the client. The appellant's claim was not about the classification of the service but about the taxability of the activity. The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly paid the Service Tax and dismissed the appeal.
Issue 2: Entitlement to Refund Claim
The appellant's refund claim was based on the argument that the activity undertaken by them was not taxable. However, the Tribunal determined that the service provided by the appellant was on behalf of III, and as the Service Tax was correctly paid, there was no basis for granting a refund. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's activity was taxable under the category of infrastructural support service and that the appellant was not entitled to a refund claim as the Service Tax was correctly paid. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (5) TMI 828
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the issue of whether the profit on the sale of land should be considered as capital gain or business income.
Summary:
Issue 1: Classification of profit on sale of land
The Revenue appealed against the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to treat the profit on the sale of land as capital gain declared by the assessee, arguing that it should be considered as business income. The ld. DR contended that the property was initially held as stock in trade and later transferred to investment, but the Revenue considered this conversion as an afterthought to reduce tax liability. The ld. CIT(A) held that the sale of land should be treated as capital gain and not business income, citing reasons such as lack of established business activity, previous conduct of the appellant, and the nature of income derived from the land. The assessee argued that the land was actively involved in construction and development activities, leasing, and was shown as stock in trade in the Balance Sheet. The assessee's business profile was focused on developing land and constructing buildings, indicating a business/trade activity. Various legal precedents were cited to support the contention that even a single transaction can be considered business if it shows clear indications of trade. The assessee's intention from the beginning, commercial exploitation of the land, and subsequent sale were all considered as indicative of a business activity.
Issue 2: Compliance with Income Tax Act
The ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), emphasizing that the declaration of profit was in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the sale of land was an isolated transaction for investment and leasing purposes, not constituting a business activity. The absence of any alterations or modifications to the land, lack of activity or organized purpose for sale, and the intention of the appellant in purchasing the land were highlighted. The AO did not contest the cost of improvement accepted by him, indicating that the particular transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade as perceived by the AO.
Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and facts, the Tribunal upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the classification of the profit on the sale of land as capital gain. The computation of Long Term Capital Gain was found to be in accordance with the law, and the sale of land was not deemed a business activity for the assessment year. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the ld. CIT(A).
-
2013 (5) TMI 827
Waiver of pre-deposit – Financial hardship – Tribunal directed appellant to make pre-deposit of 25% of cumulative demand of customs duty as condition for hearing appeal before it – Held that:- appellant urged that he may be given opportunity to place material with regard to financial hardship before Tribunal and that Tribunal be directed to consider case from point of view of financial hardship also – Appellant permitted to move appropriate application before Tribunal indicating its financial hardship – Tribunal to consider same and pass appropriate order – Appeal disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 826
What is the effect of the clarification dated 21st January, 2004 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs? - installation of new plant and machinery - benefit of Notification dated 10th June, 2003, states that an industry, which carries out substantial expansion, is entitled to the benefit of the said Notification - In the clarification, what was substantial expansion, was denoted first.
Held that: - A Division Bench of this Court has already pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-I v. M/s. Charu Steels Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 137 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] that, in the event, in replacement of existing plant and machinery, new plant and machinery have been installed and, by reason thereof, the erstwhile installed capacity is increased by more than 25 per cent thereof, such expansion effort will come within the four corners of the Notification dated 10th June, 2003.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2013 (5) TMI 825
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the failure of authorities to consider the retrospective effect of an amendment to Section 32(i) and the classification of assets as short term capital assets for taxation.
Issue 1: Deduction of Interest and Capital Gain Classification
The case involved the disallowance of the deduction of interest and the determination of whether the gain from the sale of depreciable fixed assets would be short term or long term following the insertion of explanation 5 to Section 32(i) u/s 54BC of the Act. The assessee claimed the deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 64,750, which was dismissed as not pressed. The ITAT directed the authorities to consider the claim after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The assessee sold assets on which long term capital gain was determined and claimed exemption u/s 54EC. The ITAT directed a proper examination of the issue in light of the amendment to Section 32(i) with effect from 1.4.2003. The AO did not consider the issue, leading to a dispute regarding the classification of capital gains and the applicability of Section 50.
Issue 2: Computation of Capital Gains and Applicability of Section 50
The AO considered the investment u/s 54EC as short term capital gain, leading to an appeal. The CIT(A) considered the applicability of Section 50 in respect of the assets sold and the computation of capital gains. The assessee argued that the capital gains were taxed in accordance with the IT Act and that the assets should not be deemed short term capital assets. The ITAT, after considering the facts and relevant legal precedents, held that the claim of deduction u/s 54EC was rightly claimed by the assessee based on the facts and figures presented. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to accept the claim as returned by the assessee.
Conclusion
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 21.05.2013 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata.
-
2013 (5) TMI 823
Issues involved: Appeal against demand of duty and penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for import of capital goods by a 100% E.O.U. for demonstration purpose.
Summary:
The appellant, a 100% E.O.U., imported capital goods for demonstration purpose. The department alleged the goods were not intended for manufacturing finished goods for export but for demonstration/reverse engineering. Proceedings were initiated for duty demand and penalty imposition. The lower authority confirmed the demand and penalty. The appellant appealed, claiming eligibility for exemption u/s 52/2003-Cus as goods were for demonstration purpose and not cleared for home consumption.
The Tribunal examined Notification No. 52/2003-Cus providing exemption to 100% EOU for imported goods. The department contended goods were not covered under Annexure II, requiring proof of installation or use within a specified period. The appellant submitted certificates confirming use of imported goods for product diversification. As a 100% EOU, they satisfied conditions of the Notification. Since goods were not cleared for home consumption and within warehousing period, proceedings were deemed premature. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.
Separate Judgement: None.
-
2013 (5) TMI 822
Issues involved: Disallowance of Director's remuneration under section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A) -9, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010-11 regarding the disallowance of Director's remuneration amounting to Rs. 87,45,107/- under section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act. The AO observed an increase in salary and allowances claimed by the assessee, specifically focusing on the remuneration paid to a new director. The AO considered the increase excessive and invoked section 40A(2)(b) to restrict the remuneration paid to the new director. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the salary paid to the new director was justified based on his qualifications and experience.
The AO's disallowance was based on the premise that the salary of the new director should not exceed that of the old director, leading to the partial disallowance of the remuneration. The ld. CIT (A) disagreed with this reasoning, highlighting that the remuneration was set based on the new director's qualifications and experience, emphasizing that not all directors need to be paid equally. The decision to fix remuneration was deemed as per the company's discretion. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) were not challenged with any substantial evidence.
In conclusion, the ld. CIT(A) justified the remuneration paid to the new director based on his academic and business achievements, concluding that the disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(2)(b) lacked convincing reasons and was directed to be deleted. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the ld. CIT(A).
-
2013 (5) TMI 821
Issues involved: Challenge to the constitutionality of Circular dated 1/1/2013, recovery of service tax demand, direction for stay application before the Tribunal.
Constitutionality of Circular dated 1/1/2013:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the declaration of the Circular dated 1/1/2013 as unconstitutional, null, and void. The prayer included a direction to the respondents not to recover the service tax demand mentioned in the notice dated 20/2/2013 until the appeal and stay application before the Tribunal are decided. The court noted the petitioner's reliance on a judgment in M/s.Simran Construction Co. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which directed the appellate authority/CESTAT to hear and decide stay applications within a specified timeframe, with a prohibition on coercive recovery steps during this period.
Opposition to passing of order:
The counsel for the respondents opposed the passing of a similar order in the present case, citing the long pendency of the writ-petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Jaipur-I since 2004. The appeal had been dismissed in default and later restored, leading to the contention that the same order may not be appropriate in this case.
Court's decision:
The court found no justification in the respondents' counsel's submission and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Jaipur-I to decide the appeal or, at least, the stay application within eight weeks from the date the parties appear before it. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with parties instructed to appear before the Commissioner on a specified date. Additionally, the court ordered that no coercive action for the recovery of service tax should be taken against the petitioner until the specified date.
-
2013 (5) TMI 820
whether exemption granted to the existing unit could be curtailed by notification issued by the State Government.
The extent of exemption and its percentage, provided in section 4A of the Act as amended by Ordinance No. 18 of 1999, is subject to issuance of notification,
-
2013 (5) TMI 819
Issues:
Challenge to order of Rajasthan Tax Board in Rectification Application, Mistake apparent on the face of record, Rectificatory order under section 37 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, Incomplete declaration form ST-18A, Interpretation of judgment in Guljag Industries case, Principles of natural justice, Remand to assessing officer, Penalty proceedings, Opportunity of fresh hearing.
Analysis:
The petitioner-assessee challenged the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board in a Rectification Application, arguing that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying the rectificatory order. The counsel contended that the Tax Board's decision was impermissible under the Act, as only mistakes apparent on the face of the record could be rectified. Additionally, the petitioner asserted that the case involved an incomplete declaration form ST-18A, citing the judgment in Guljag Industries case as precedent for remanding such matters back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that a mistake was apparent, justifying the rectificatory order by the Tax Board. They maintained that the principles outlined in the Guljag Industries case had been considered by the Tax Board, and hence, the matter should not be remanded back to the assessing authority.
The judgment referred to the Guljag Industries case, emphasizing the importance of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which mandates supporting goods in movement with the requisite declaration. The court highlighted the necessity of complete and accurate declaration forms for proper assessment of taxable goods, stating that incomplete forms hinder the assessing officer's ability to determine the taxable turnover. The judgment also clarified that mens rea is not essential for contravention of section 78(2), and non-compliance can lead to penalties under section 78(5).
Moreover, the court reiterated the need to follow principles of natural justice, as seen in previous cases where matters were remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Consequently, the revision petition was partly allowed, quashing the orders of the authorities below and restoring the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh decision on penalty proceedings in accordance with the law outlined in the Guljag Industries case. The assessee was granted a new opportunity for a hearing, with specific notice of defects and deficiencies, and the assessing authority was directed to issue fresh orders within six months.
In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of complete and accurate declaration forms for proper tax assessment, highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with section 78(2), and reiterated the application of principles of natural justice in tax matters.
-
2013 (5) TMI 818
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Interpretation of rules 53 and 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 regarding declaration forms ST-18A and 18C.
3. Application of principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings.
Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenged an order of the Tax Board upholding the decision that penalty under section 78(5) could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee if the declaration form ST 18-A was found blank or incomplete, provided other supporting documents were in order. The petitioner cited previous judgments favoring the Revenue to support their case.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of section 78(2) of the Act, requiring goods in movement to be supported by the necessary declaration. The Court discussed the contents of forms ST-18A and 18C, highlighting the importance of complete information for proper assessment. Previous cases were cited to illustrate the significance of accurate documentation for tax assessment purposes.
3. The Court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the application of principles of natural justice in tax matters. It was noted that cases had been remanded back to the assessing officer to provide fresh opportunities for the assessee to be heard, in line with the law laid down by the apex court in relevant cases. Consequently, the revision petition was partly allowed, quashing previous orders and directing a fresh assessment with adequate hearing for the assessee.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper application of tax laws, the necessity of complete documentation for tax assessment, and the importance of following principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings. The decision highlighted the need for assessing authorities to afford adequate opportunities for hearing to the concerned parties and to ensure compliance with legal requirements within a specified timeframe.
-
2013 (5) TMI 817
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the confiscation of goods claimed to be of foreign origin, duty imposition, and penalty by the Revenue department, and the subsequent appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Confiscation of Goods:
The case revolved around the detention of packages at CST railway terminals, claimed by Shri Firoz Merchant of M/s. National Angadia Services, which were found to contain goods of foreign origin. Despite the claimant's inability to produce legal documents regarding importation and acquisition of the goods, three other individuals were identified as the owners. The Revenue alleged that the goods were smuggled into India and imposed duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the impugned goods were not listed under Section 123 of the Customs Act, shifting the onus to the Revenue to prove the goods were smuggled. The Commissioner noted the lack of investigation by the department to verify the origin of the goods, especially considering the customs duty receipts provided by the owners. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside.
Duty Imposition and Appeal:
The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the goods were of foreign origin and without proper importation documents, they should be considered smuggled goods. However, upon review, it was observed that the goods were not listed under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the burden on the Revenue to substantiate their claim of smuggling. Despite the recorded statements of the respondents, the Revenue failed to conduct further investigation. In the absence of evidence contradicting the respondents' claims and the lack of proof of smuggling, the appeals by the Revenue were deemed meritless, leading to their dismissal.
-
2013 (5) TMI 816
Suo moto adjustment - excess duty paid by the respondent has been adjusted against the duty demand by the Commissioner (Appeals) - the respondent had filed a refund claim of excess duty paid by them - Held that: - reliance was placed in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (10) TMI 399 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that as the selling price of the petroleum products have been fixed by the Government of India under APM regime, the question of unjust enrichment does not apply - the respondents are entitled for adjustment of excess duty paid towards short duty paid by them, as the respondent filed refund claim in time of excess duty paid by them.
The matter is to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the respondents are required to pay any duty after adjusting the excess duty paid by them against the duty demanded from them - appeal allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
