|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1466 Records
-
2024 (6) TMI 1206
Addition u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE - cash deposits treated as unexplained money - assessee could not establish source for cash deposits made during demonetization period into Axis Bank account - assessee could not establish accumulation of cash in hand - assessee himself claimed that he has received cash in demonetized currency after 09.11.2016 and up to 31.12.2016 contrary to Circular issued by RBI & Government of India in respect of handling demonetized currency - assessee could not file any evidences like month wise sales/purchases for FYs 2015-16 & 2016- 17, stock register, and other details to fully substantiate his claim of the cash deposits from sale of materials only.
HELD THAT:- The facts borne out from the record clearly indicate that the assessee is running a dhall mill and manufacturing various kinds of dhalls. The assessee procures various kinds of pulses from local market and manufacturing into various kinds of dhalls and sells to unregistered dealers in cash.
From the details filed by the assessee, it is abundantly clear that there is no sudden increase in cash sales during demonetization period when compared to earlier Financial Years. Further, the assessee has filed cash book and other details to prove availability of cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 at Rs.71,76,208/-. In fact, the AO is not disputed the fact that the assessee has filed cash book and as per said cash book, cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs.71,76,208/-. If you go by the nature of business of the assessee and sales trend, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee’s sales predominantly in cash, and thus, the cash in hand shown by the assessee as on 08.11.2016 appears to be genuine and bona fide. To this extent, in our considered view, the reasons given by the AO to reject explanation of the assessee for source for cash deposits into bank account is devoid of merits.
As considering explanation of the assessee with regard to source for remaining cash deposits.assessee claims that he has collected cash in demonetized currency from customers even after 09.11.2016 and said cash receipts is not violation of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.
As per Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, no person shall accept or transact any SBNs from the appointed date. As per said Act, appointed date is 31.12.2016. From the above, it is very clear that up to appointed date, persons can transact in SBNs. However, the only requirement is, they should be able to establish source for said cash deposits.
In the given facts of the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee’s sales predominantly in cash. It is also an undisputed fact that there is no abnormal variation in total sales, cash sales and cash deposits for two Financial Years. The assessee is also able to file various evidences, including month-wise purchase and sales and cash book to prove availability of cash in hand as on 08.11.2016. Therefore, we are of the considered view that going by the nature of business of the assessee and also details submitted for two Financial Years, the explanation offered by the assessee towards source for cash deposits into bank account during demonetization period, is bona fide and acceptable. The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the relevant submissions of the assessee simply made addition towards cash deposits u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1205
Assessment order u/s. 144 passed ex parte - assessee submitted that the management of the company was not aware of the notices issued by both the authorities and the assessee company was also facing SARFAESI proceedings - HELD THAT:- AO passed assessment order u/s. 144 and before the CIT(Appeals) there was no representation by the assessee. Assessee has submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee was facing SARFAESI proceedings and that the notice issued by the CIT(Appeals) was not served on the assessee on its registered email-id with the department and hence could not be represented by the assessee before the lower authorities.
CIT(Appeals) has passed ex parte order. In the interest of justice, we remit the issues in appeal to the file of AO for fresh consideration and decision as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to communicate its correct email-id, mobile no. etc. to the department and produce all necessary evidence in support of its case and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case - Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1204
Capital gain computation - Failure to refer valuation to the DVO as per section 50C - property in question was being developed as Rehabilitation of Slum Scheme by the Slum Redevelopment Authority which was not transferable by the assessee for a period of ten years - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the issue is required to be remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as per provisions contained under section 50C of the Act so as to compare the actual sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation as on date of the allotment letter (supra). Hence, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1203
Disallowance of deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) - AO noted that to verify those expenses, the assessee was given various opportunities but assessee did not provide necessary vouchers and details but noted that certain information was received from ITBA which was examined - HELD THAT:- Assessee was given various opportunities but he did not produce books of accounts and vouchers. AO further said that some information was received through ITBA but the AO did not specify the documents and information which have been given by the assessee.
Interest of justice would be served if the matter is remitted to AO. AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with AO in this regard. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1202
Ex-parte order levying penalty u/s 270A - assessee submitted that the CIT (A) NFAC had not granted proper opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the order of the CIT (A) NFAC we find learned CIT (A) NFAC had issued notice on 17.05.2022, however, there was no compliance. On the next date of hearing on 6.7.2023, the assessee filed an application for adjournment and the matter was adjourned 23.07.2023 and again there was also non-compliance for which the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution.
As assessee submitted that given an opportunity in the interest of justice, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by producing the relevant details before the learned CIT (A) NFAC - For interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the necessary documents and decide the issue as per fact and law. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2024 (6) TMI 1201
Penalty u/s 271B - not getting books of accounts audited as per the provisions of section 44AB - Assessee submitted that the assessee has not written up the books of accounts till the date of finalization of audit within the due date specified u/s 44AB, accordingly, there was no possibility of getting accounted u/s 44AB
HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is this that the assessee did not file any return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The return was filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on account of income escaping assessment. Thus, there remains no ambiguity that the books of accounts of the assessee were not written up before the due date of filing the return of income as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. This fact can be verified from the penalty order framed by the AO under section 271B of the Act.
Once it is established that the books of accounts were not written up within the due date of filing the return of income, the question of getting them audited to comply the provision of section 44AB of the Act, does not arise. As such the first default of the assessee on stand-alone basis is non-maintenance of books of account u/s 44AA of the Act which is complete offence. Therefore, such default i.e. non-maintenance of the books of accounts is subject to the penalty under the provisions of section 271A .
As decided in BISAULI TRACTORS [2007 (5) TMI 181 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as separate penalty has been provided for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A and for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B - If a person has not maintained the accounts book or any accounts the question of its audit does not arise. In such an event the imposition of penalty under the provision contained in section 271A of the Act for the alleged non-compliance of section 44AA of the Act may arise but the provisions of section 44AB of the Act does not get violated in case where the accounts have not been maintained at all and, therefore, penal provisions of section 271B of the Act would not apply. Also see SURAJMAL PARSURAM TODI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1996 (8) TMI 102 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]
Therefore, the assessee can get the immunity from the penalty specified u/s 271B of the Act.\
Contention of the Ld. DR that the assessee has written up the books of accounts is misplaced. Indeed, the assessee has written up books of account but on a later date. As such, the Ld. DR has not brought any concrete evidence justifying that the books of accounts of the assessee were written up before the due date of filing return of income as specified under section 139 of the Act and therefore the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 44AB.
We hold that the assessee did not maintain the books of accounts within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act, so as to comply the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee cannot be visited to the penalty for the offence committed by the assessee for not getting accounts audited. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1200
Bogus LTCG - Denial of exemption u/s 10(38) - investment is to be treated as unreal - assessee has purchased 6,000 of equity shares of Sulabh Engineers & Services Ltd. through the broker but as per AO Sulabh Engineers & Services Ltd. is a paper entity and its stocks were manipulated by the experts for granting undue benefits to certain investors - As argued small profit is earned by the assessee
THELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has examined a large number of companies, whose shares were manipulated by certain share brokers for granting undue benefit to the investors either in the shape of gain or loss whenever it is required to an investor. Therefore, the very credential of this company where investment was made is unreliable.
The genuineness of an investee company is not dependent on the magnitude of profit earned by an investor. The assessee might have made investment when the shares of the company were already managed to a particular level and he sold his investment very early, but that small profit is earned by the assessee would not result into automatic genuineness of the transaction. It is an incorrect conception conceptualized by the assessee to segregate himself from the treatment of other such investors. It cannot be accepted as fact to distinguish the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, simply for the reason that magnitude of profit is on the lower side to the assessee.
The assessee’s investment cannot become genuine because he earned a lesser amount of profit and at the cost of repetition, we again observe that magnitude of profit is not a decisive factor about genuineness of existence of an investee company, therefore, we do not find any error in the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), hence Assessee appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1199
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained money under Section 69A - exemption u/s 10(38) wrongly claimed - Shares were not genuinely obtained, and the conduct of the assessee raised suspicions regarding the sale of shares at a higher rate - HLED THAT:- AO in the Assessment Order has given the finding in respect of the assessee’s purchase and sale activities wherein it was stated that the sale consideration is in fact first paid by the assessee in cash who has trusted confidence in broker but the said fact appears to be not correct.
AO has not stated out as to how the assessee is involved in price variation of the said scrip of Turbotech Engineering Limited during that period while selling the said shares/scrip. Besides this, the suspension of the said scrip came much after selling of the said scrip carried out by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed exemption u/s 10(38).
AO as well as the CIT (A) has not established that the assessee was involved in the price manipulation of the sales scrip and, therefore, this cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A.
Reopening of the assessee’s case, the reopening was properly done with proper procedure followed by the AO and, therefore, ground in that respect is dismissed but on merit i.e. ground no.2 (actually 3) is allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1198
Revision u/s 263 - assessee had not deducted tax at source on part of the salary and on account of non-deduction of tax on commission / brokerage payment - As per CIT AO did not made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the contentions of assessee that once the recipient of income has offered the income on which no taxes were deducted by the assessee at source and paid due taxes thereon, in view of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee is deemed to have deducted and paid taxes on such sum and the assessee is not an “assessee in default”.
In the instant case, it has been argued before us that so far as salary and commission is concerned, the recipient has offered such income in their respective returns of income and have paid due taxes thereon. However, the Ld. PCIT has omitted to consider and analyze these arguments during the course of 263 proceedings.
Accordingly, in so far as the issue of non-deduction of TDS on aforesaid two payments are concerned, we are of the considered view that the assessee was not could not be held to an assessee in default once the recipient of income has offered such income in their return of income and paid due taxes thereon.
With respect to the disallowance of commission is concerned, the assessee has himself agreed for disallowance before Ld. PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings. Accordingly, in so far as TDS on commission the aforesaid amount is liable to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, it is so directed that the aforesaid amount may be added to the income of the assessee during the impugned assessment year. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1197
Addition made u/s 68 - assessee could not furnish Income Tax Return of entity/ trust as capital contributors - HELD THAT:- During appellate proceedings, it transpired that notice u/s. 148 was issued to Trust and that entity filed its return of income - This return has been subjected to scrutiny assessment and an order has been passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B accepting the returned income of that entity.
AO has drawn conclusion that the deposits made by the assessee were out of funds received from M/s Shriram Ownership Trust for Rs. 34 Crores and from M/s Envestor Trust for Rs. 6.30 Crores. Therefore, the source of time deposit made by that assessee during that year stood explained. This being the case, there remain nothing with revenue to doubt the credit received by present assessee before us.
Thus as rightly concluded in the impugned order, the assessee successfully proved the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and also the genuineness of the transactions. Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1196
Rectification u/s. 154 - Denial of deduction 80P - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the AO has not brought out single material on record to show that the deduction granted in the assessment order completed is a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification order does not provide for any reason.
AO in the show cause notice had referred in the case of Citizen Cooperative society Ltd [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] where benefit of deduction u/s. 80P was denied since in the facts of that case assessee was dealing with non-members and had violated the principles of mutuality.
AO has also referred to the judgment of case of SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] for the limited proposition that a rectification order can be passed on the basis of subsequent judgment. It is interesting to note that the AO has not referred to the subsequent judgment in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] which was already available when he had issued show cause notice to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that to the extent of dealing with non-members, proportionate deduction for the same can be denied.
As mentioned earlier, in the instant case the AO while issuing show cause notice for rectification had not mentioned that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality by dealing with nonmembers.
Therefore, the issue is highly debatable and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. Only an obvious and patent mistake which can be established not by a long drawn process of reasoning alone can be subjected to rectification proceedings u/s. 154 - In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality and has been dealing with non-members. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue raised in this appeal is not a mistake apparent on record which is amenable to rectification u/s. 154 - Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1195
Addition of share capital as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - CIT (A) arrived at a conclusion that subscriber had simply submitted the documents but did not appear for examination on oath and creditworthiness could not be proved - CIT (A) also observed that investigation of the AO was deliberately resisted by the assessee and the share subscribing companies by resorting to approach of non-compliance, thus, sustained the additions so made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
HELD THAT:- As none appeared to represent the assessee and substantiate the claim made by it. From the perusal of the authorities below, we observe that assessee has been contesting that it had made all the submissions in support of the transaction in which additions have been made which have not been considered.
It is a fact on record that notices issued for fixing the hearing have been returned unserved which have also been issued on the latest address mentioned in the letter head which was used for filing the application for adjournment dated 06.10.2023. Nothing has been placed on record by the assessee, which has been claimed to be furnished before the authorities below in support of its transactions. In absence of such material, we do not find any reason to interfere with the observations and findings arrived at by the authorities below. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1194
Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - entire impugned action is based on the fact that agreement showed the individual name of assessee [name of director of the company figured in his individual capacity and not in the name of company] - HELD THAT:-We find that the learned CIT (A) is right in finding that it was by way of a bona fide mistake, which has also been corrected subsequently.
CIT (A) has then adverted to the additions which could be made under Section 69 of the Act. The said section envisages a situation where the assessee has (i) made an investment (ii) which is not recorded in the books of account or (iii) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature/source of the investment or (iv) the explanation offered is not found to be satisfactory. In our view, none of these requirements can be said to be satisfied in this case as the explanation offered is plausible and is clearly borne out of material on record. We, therefore, find that no case for interference is made out. Revenue appeal stands dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1193
Ex-parte assessment u/s 144 - application seeking permission to submit the additional evidence - claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) - HELD THAT:- Given that the assessment proceedings have been completed u/s 144 and the assessee has come forward with an explanation regarding non-appearance before the AO and has also moved an application seeking permission to submit the additional evidence, it was incumbent on part of the CIT (A) to consider the said prayer of the assessee for submitting additional evidence.
In our view, we find that the additional evidence so submitted is critical and germane for deciding the matter under consideration and given that the assessment has been completed u/s 144, the assessee deserve to be allowed an opportunity to furnish the necessary explanation and documentation in support of its claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act.
Therefore, we hereby admit the additional evidence and the matter is remanded to the file of the CIT (A) to examine the matter a fresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The contentions on merits are thus left open and not adjudicated upon - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1192
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained deposits with regard to amount of share premium and increase in paid up capital - Identity, creditworthiness and genuiness of the creditors were not established by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The findings of the CIT (A) mentioned elsewhere do not have any supporting evidences. It appears that the first appellate authority has simply believed what has been stated before him without making any verification himself and putting the entire blame on the AO.
The first error in the findings of the CIT (A) is that the share application money was received in F.Y. 2007-08. The bank statements show that the credits were made in the bank account in the month of August 2008. The contention of the Counsel that the cheques were received in the month of March-2008 and, therefore, the entries are reflected in F.Y.2007-08 is nothing but mockery of the accounting system as no bank in the entire country would validate clearing of check after 8 months.
The validity of check is only for 3 months and, therefore, cheques of March-2008 could not have cleared in the month of August-2008. Assuming that fresh cheques were issued then the cheques must have been issued in F.Y. 2008-09 pertaining to year under consideration. When the bench asked the Counsel to give the balance sheet of year ending 31.03.2008 the Counsel showed his inability and sought adjournment.
This issue needs fresh examination of facts and, therefore, we deem it fit to restore the impugned issues to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to demonstrate that the impugned share application money was received in F.Y. 2007-08 and is duly reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008.
The assessee is further directed to furnish all necessary demonstrative evidences to explain the credit of Rs. 1 crore being fresh application money received during the year alongwith documents relating to share application money of Rs. 1.50 crore. The AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1191
Ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) - violation of principle of natural justice - scope of Procedure in appeal - not giving the assessee proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard - addition made as assessee has not filed any submissions or information or documents on various opportunities given in the course of hearing - HELD THAT:- Keeping in mind the provision of sections 250 and 251 of the Act referred as above, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT (A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case by examining, verifying and analyzing the material on record. Since there are no meritorious finding given by the Ld. CIT (A) on the submissions made by the assessee and also considering the grounds raised by the assessee where the Ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex parte order without giving opportunity of being heard, we find it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for his objective and meritorious observations and findings on the submissions made by the assessee.
Needless to say the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee shall also be cooperating for the effective disposal of the appeal and will be at liberty to make further submissions as deem fit. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1190
Refund claim rejected on the ground of being time barred - Relevant date for computation of period of limitation for filing refund claim - “date of service” of finalization of provisional assessment - section 27 (1B) (c) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Once the provisional assessment is done and the assessee is entitled to the refund claim, then he has to make application within a period of one year under section 27 read with section 27(1B) of the Act.
The assessee made application on 19.08.2016 with a prayer for finalizing of custom duty by way of final assessment which means that till that point of time, the assessee was not aware about the final assessment - Merely because the Custom Department has uploaded the final assessment orders on portal is not sufficient compliance of intimation to the assesee as it is a condition sine quanon to file the refund claim within one year as per section 27 (1B)(c) of the Act from the date of finalization provided such order of assessment is communicated to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the various documents intimating the respondent assessee about the finalization of provisional assessment communicated by the respondent.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1189
Refund of SAD - imported goods were "Betel Nut Industrial Grade" (not fit for human consumption), whereas goods sold in domestic market were "Supari" (edible) - correlation between the imported goods "Betel Nut Industrial Grade" and goods sold in domestic market as "Supari" - benefit of N/N. 102/2007- Customs dated 14.09.2007 - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the case which is not in dispute that there is no distinction between the areca nuts betel nuts as certified under CTH 0802090 of HSN at the time of importation as edible goods which are not suitable for immediate consumption. It is also the case of the respondent-assessee that such imported goods were required further processing to make them edible. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon the information available on DGFT website wherein also areca nut and supari has been considered as the same product in the minutes of ALC meeting No. 02/2007 held on 20.4.2006.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal is therefore being devoid of any merits do not give rise to any questions of law - Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1188
Refund claim - demand of cost recovery charges set aside - whether the Tribunal could have confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the refund pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on merits by which the demand of cost recovery charges was set aside? - HELD THAT:- The appellate-revenue is bound by the Circular dated 22.2.2001 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs which has repeatedly clarified that if any refund arises out of any order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner or CESTAT, unless the stay order is obtained, refund must be granted after three months from the date of the order. The Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon CBEC Circular No. 572/9/2001-CX dated 22.2.2001 to reject the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner granting the refund to the respondent.
The appeal is devoid of any merits that no questions of law much less any substantial questions of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1187
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Assessment made by the department on enhanced value set aside - rejection of declared value - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- For reduction of litigation, the CBIC has issued circulars/instructions from time to time instructing the department not to file the appeal and in some cases, if it has already filed, not to press the appeal before higher authorities i.e. the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the case may be, where the duty amount involved is below the minimum threshold limits respectively prescribed in such circulars. In the present cases, we are concerned with the CBIC’s latest circular dated 02.11.2023, wherein it has been specifically prescribed that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs and if already filed, will have to be withdrawn.
In so far as, the CESTAT is concerned the monetary limit prescribed is Rs.50 lakhs. Para 3 of the said circular prescribes that in respect of the pending cases before the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court which are below the monetary limits, process of withdrawal of the appeal would be undertaken by the department.
It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in the appeal is below of the threshold limit prescribed in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department.
Reference made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, & SERVICE TAX, NASHIK II COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S. SUVARNA SANJIVANI SUGARCANE [2017 (6) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed 'There is no issue that the appeals filed by the department in the year 2 012 having monitory limits of below 15/20 lakhs. The above provisions and instructions/circulars therefore covers the case of disposal of these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal.'
The present appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board and consequently dismissed - appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
