|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 14810 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1626
The appeal was filed because the Commissioner(Appeals) remanded a refund claim under Notification No.41/2007. The appellant argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) should have decided the issue instead of remanding it. The appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner(Appeals) was directed to decide the issue on merits without remanding it.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1625
Issues Involved:
1. Revision in value of taxable service rendered to Wardha Power Company Ltd. (SPV).
2. Consideration of Rs. 23 crores received towards development of SPV (Sitapuram Power Ltd) treated as consideration for service of Management and Business Consultant service & Demand of Service Tax on notional interest for consideration towards power purchase agreement.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,95,43,376/- on the ground that the credit was used for providing exempted service.
4. Credit of Service Tax paid on bank guarantee charges executed for continuous supply of coal to the special purpose vehicles during the period from April 2007 to September 2008.
5. Credit taken on input services not relating to output services.
6. Credit taken on the basis of ineligible documents.
Issue - 1: Revision in value of taxable service rendered to Wardha Power Company Ltd. (SPV).
The appellant faced a demand for Service Tax due to a discrepancy in the project development fee charged to WPCL (SPV). Despite a communication gap resulting in delayed payment, the appellant ultimately paid the Service Tax on the entire amount. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiver considering the circumstances and documents involved.
Issues No. II and III: Consideration of Rs. 23 crores received towards development of SPV (Sitapuram Power Ltd) treated as consideration for service of Management and Business Consultant service & Demand of Service Tax on notional interest for consideration towards power purchase agreement.
The Tribunal consolidated these two issues as they were interrelated. The demand for Service Tax on the amount received for power supply was contested, arguing that the tax should have been paid upon actual receipt, not on the notional interest. The Tribunal deemed the issue debatable and requiring further examination based on agreements and tax regulations.
Issue No. IV: Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,95,43,376/- on the ground that the credit was used for providing exempted service.
The denial of Cenvat credit was challenged by the appellant, asserting that the investment in WPCL was integral to project development activities. The Tribunal found this issue debatable and necessitating detailed scrutiny due to the direct nexus between the activities and project development.
Issue No. V: Credit of Service Tax paid on bank guarantee charges executed for continuous supply of coal to the special purpose vehicles during the period from April 2007 to September 2008.
The appellant sought credit for Service Tax paid on bank guarantee charges related to coal supply, arguing its connection to project development services. The Tribunal acknowledged the debatable nature of the issue and the necessity to determine the appropriate category for the tax payment.
Issue No. VI: Credit taken on input services not relating to output services.
The appellant included various insurance premiums and services for credit, which were generally allowed based on established decisions. The Tribunal considered this a prima facie case for waiver.
Issue No. VII: Credit taken on the basis of ineligible documents.
Cenvat credit was taken based on invoices not in the appellant's name, leading to a denial by the Revenue. The appellant requested time to produce the necessary documents for verification. The Tribunal found the issue of admissibility of credit debatable and allowed the appellant an opportunity to provide the required documentation.
In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe for the purpose of hearing the appeal, with a waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining dues during the appeal's pendency.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1624
Issues involved: Refund claim for input services used in export of goods under Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
Summary:
The appellant, M/s. Texport Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim for input services used in export of goods under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, along with Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The claim was rejected on various grounds:
1. Rejection of a refund amount due to availing drawback for export, contrary to the condition under Notification No. 41/2007.
2. Rejection of another amount for technical testing and analysis service due to lack of written agreement with the foreign buyer.
3. Rejection of a third amount for courier services due to insufficient evidence linking the charges to the export of goods.
The appellant argued that they were eligible for the refund as the drawback availed was not for specified services, they complied with testing requirements as per the purchase order, and the courier charges were related to the export. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to meet the conditions specified under Notification No. 41/2007.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of &8377; 16,458.33 for technical testing and analysis service as they complied with the testing requirements. However, the refund claims of &8377; 1,64,364.14 and &8377; 36,802.14 were rightly rejected as the appellant did not meet the necessary conditions for these amounts. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed, granting refund only for the technical testing and analysis service.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1623
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the classification of services provided by an offshore company under a technical collaboration agreement, liability for payment of Service Tax, and imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.
Classification of services provided by the offshore company:
The appellant, a company based in Korea, entered into an agreement with M/s. Samcor Glass Ltd., Kota for transfer of technology and technical assistance for manufacture of colour picture tubes for which they charged royalty. The department treated the services as Consulting Engineer's services and issued a show cause notice for demand of Service Tax. The Addl. Commissioner initially dropped the proceedings against the appellant, holding that transfer of technology under a licence agreement does not fall under Consulting Engineer's service. However, the Commissioner later held that the transfer of technology under the licence agreement is covered by service of Consulting Engineers. The Tribunal, considering the absence of any provision to charge Service Tax from an offshore service provider in India, set aside the impugned order, ruling that no Service Tax can be charged from the offshore service provider. The appeal was allowed based on this reasoning.
Liability for payment of Service Tax:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand for Service Tax against the appellant for the period from 1-4-2002 to 15-8-2002, as the liability to pay Service Tax in respect of a taxable service provided by an offshore service provider not having any branch or business establishment in India, to a person in India was determined to be that of the service recipient. The demand confirmed against the Appellant was Rs. 9,97,130/- along with interest. However, the Tribunal held that irrespective of the taxable nature of the service provided by the appellant, no Service Tax can be charged from them in accordance with relevant judgments. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside.
Imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994:
In addition to confirming the Service Tax demand, the Commissioner imposed penalties of equal amount on the Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and also penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the same Act. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order also nullified the imposition of these penalties, as the Service Tax demand itself was deemed invalid. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's finding that no Service Tax could be charged from the offshore service provider.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1622
Rejection of Refund claimed by service recipient - ground alleged for rejection of refund claim is that refund can be claimed only by the person, who has paid the service tax and the appellant who is the service recipient is not eligible for claiming of refund - GTA Service - Held that:- This ground is patently absurd and irrational - Notification No. 41/2007 which provides exemption through a refund mechanism clearly and unequivocally states that it is the exporter who can refund claim and not the service provider except in a situation where the exporter and the person discharging the tax liability is one and the same - rejection of refund claim is unsustainable in law.
Refund claim - service tax on transportation charges incurred from the port/container yard to the factory in respect of empty containers - denial on account of nexus - Held that:- The issue is settled in favor of the appellant in the case of Vippy Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [2014 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the appellant would be eligible for refund of service tax on transportation charges incurred from the port/container yard to the factory in respect of empty containers as the said transportation was in connection with the exports undertaken and therefore, there is a nexus between the transportation of empty containers with the export of the goods - refund allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1621
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the maintenance of separate accounts for the utilization of CENVAT credit, the imposition of service tax demand, interest, and penalty, and the compliance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005.
Maintenance of Separate Accounts:
The appellant claimed to have maintained separate accounts for services exclusively used for taxable services and common services used for both taxable and non-taxable services. The Chartered Accountant submitted that the appellant fulfilled the obligation under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) finding no separate accounts were maintained based on an audit report, the Tribunal held that in the absence of contrary evidence, the claim of maintaining separate accounts and the Chartered Accountant's certificate should be accepted.
Compliance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005:
The original adjudicating authority observed a lack of categorical declaration in ST-3 returns regarding the maintenance of separate accounts. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 6(2) does not require a declaration in ST-3 returns for maintaining separate accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement of declaration in ST-3 returns does not flow from the statute but from the lower authorities' interpretation.
Imposition of Service Tax Demand, Interest, and Penalty:
The audit report led to proceedings against the appellant for a service tax demand, interest, and penalty due to the alleged non-maintenance of separate accounts. The appellant, while not contesting the service tax demand and interest, sought a waiver of the penalty. The Tribunal found no case for the imposition of penalty, considering the appellant's claim of maintaining separate accounts and the lack of contrary evidence. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining separate accounts for CENVAT credit utilization, clarifies the compliance requirements under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, and emphasizes the need for evidence to support findings in tax proceedings.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1620
Issues involved: Service Tax demand on "renting of immovable property" service and "port service" provided by the appellant.
Summary:
Issue 1: Service Tax demand on "renting of immovable property" service
The appellant, a Port Officer, appealed against an adjudication order confirming a Service Tax demand for providing "renting of immovable property" service during a specific period. The show cause notice alleged receipt of amounts from various entities for renting immovable property. The appellant argued that it does not own any property and only provides core port services, collecting payments on behalf of entities and remitting them to the State Govt. without retaining any amounts. The Court noted that the proceedings did not address whether the appellant had any control over immovable property or entered into lease agreements. It concluded that the finding that the appellant provided renting of immovable property service without critical examination of relevant facts was questionable.
Issue 2: Service Tax demand on "port service"
The adjudication order also confirmed a demand for providing "port service" during a specified period. The appellant contended that it did not provide any taxable service as it did not own any property and only facilitated payments to the State Govt. The Court found that there was no evidence of the appellant having any transferable interest in immovable property leased to third parties. It held that the conclusion that the appellant provided port service was not adequately supported by critical examination of facts.
Conclusion:
The Court granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of proceedings for recovery of the assessed liability, noting that the appellant had made a strong prima facie case for relief due to the lack of critical examination of relevant facts in determining the Service Tax liability for renting of immovable property and port services provided.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1619
Issues involved: Determination of liability to pay service tax on laying of paver blocks in a port area under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' or 'Commercial Construction Service'.
Summary:
Issue 1: Nature of service rendered and liability to pay service tax
The appellant, M/s. Conwood Pre-Fab Ltd., undertook the activity of laying paver blocks in a port area based on work-orders received from other entities. The appellant argued that the activity constituted 'commercial construction service' and was not taxable. The department contended that the activity fell under 'Business Auxiliary Service', making the appellant liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal noted that regardless of the recipient of the service, the nature of the activity remained the same. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that subcontracting did not alter the service rendered, and thus, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The Tribunal concluded that laying paver blocks constituted construction activity excluded from the scope of 'Commercial Construction Service', thereby waiving the service tax liability and granting a stay on recovery during the appeal.
Keywords: Service tax liability, commercial construction service, Business Auxiliary Service, subcontracting, construction activity, waiver, stay of recovery.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1618
Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on duty paid on steel strips for payment of service tax due to invoices not in the name of the appellant.
Summary:
The appellant's Cenvat credit of &8377; 2,61,979/- on duty paid for steel strips used in strapping and packing, was denied for March 2007 as the invoices were in customers' names. The appellant argued that a similar issue was resolved in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a subsequent period. The Revenue contended that the packing premises were not the appellant's, so the earlier decision was not applicable. The Tribunal noted that the steel strip invoices were in customers' names as they did the packing work, but the strips were used by the appellant for packing. The Revenue's argument about including material value for service tax payment was considered. Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules was cited, stating that the recipient's address is not essential for credit eligibility. The Tribunal found that the appellant satisfied requirements by showing the strips were used for services, duty was paid, and ruled in favor of the appellant, treating the issue as a procedural omission. The appeal was allowed, granting credit to the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1617
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the delay caused in filing an appeal against the pre-deposit order and the service tax demand on trade discounts given by the manufacturer to the wholesale distributor.
Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeal Against Pre-Deposit Order
The appellant initially filed an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal for non-compliance. They were directed to file an appeal against the pre-deposit order as well, resulting in a delay of 54 days. The delay was solely due to the Bench's direction to file the additional appeal. The COD application was allowed considering the reasons provided were satisfactory.
Issue 2: Service Tax Demand on Trade Discounts
The appellant, a wholesale distributor, was appointed by the manufacturer to sell Jarda under a specific brand. The manufacturer provided trade discounts based on the weight of the product sold. The Revenue contended that these discounts were akin to a commission for subsequent sales, falling under Business Auxiliary Service liable to service tax. Show-cause notices were issued, leading to a service tax demand of Rs. 4,72,922/- along with interest and penalties. The lower appellate authority directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount, which was not complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
The wholesale distributorship agreement clarified that the goods were sold to the appellant by the manufacturer, who had already paid excise duty and VAT. Upon delivery at the factory gate, the appellant became the owner of the goods and then resold them to other dealers/retailers. This transaction was deemed a sale of goods, not a service. The appellant successfully argued that their activity did not attract service tax. Consequently, the order directing the pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount was deemed unsustainable in law, and thus set aside.
As the appeal was not decided on merits by the lower appellate authority, the matter was remanded back to them for a reconsideration of the appeal on its merits. The appellant was to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1616
Issues involved: Interpretation of Service Tax liability on activities related to design, drawing, supervision, commissioning, and installation services u/s Consulting Engineer's Services.
Summary:
Issue 1: Service Tax classification for activities pre and post 1-7-2003:
The appeal challenged a Service Tax demand of &8377; 95,63,151/- against the appellant for services rendered towards design, drawing, supervision, commissioning, and installation. The appellant argued that post-1-7-2003, they paid tax under erection, commissioning, and installation services, which was not disputed by the department. They cited a previous Tribunal decision that supported their position. The Revenue contended that the services fell under Consulting Engineer Services as per the relevant definition. The Tribunal noted the appellant's activities and tax payments post-1-7-2003, concluding that prior to this date, the services could not be classified as Consulting Engineer Services. They referenced legal precedents to support this interpretation and upheld the appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
Decision:
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable in law due to the appellant's tax payments and activities post-1-7-2003. They set aside the order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1615
Issues: Service Tax demand confirmation for 'site formation and clearance' service; Liability to remit Service Tax for components of explosives and diesel supplied free of cost.
Service Tax Demand Confirmation: The Commissioner confirmed a Service Tax demand of &8377; 9,68,44,164 for 'site formation and clearance' service provided during a specific period. The order also mentioned the appropriation of &8377; 8,90,000 already remitted, along with interest and penalties.
Liability for Components Provided Free of Cost: The singular issue revolved around the liability to remit Service Tax for explosives and diesel supplied by the service recipient without any charge or deduction from the consideration payable for the service. The question was whether these components should be included in the taxable value u/s Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Legal Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal analyzed Section 67(1)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, which states that the taxable value for a service provided for a consideration in money should be the gross amount charged by the service provider. It was observed that as the diesel and explosives were not part of the consideration provided by the recipient, they should not be included in the taxable value. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed further proceedings pending the appeal's disposal.
Tax Demand Breakdown: Out of the total tax demand, a portion related to receipts from the service recipient for bonus and miscellaneous payments. The petitioner had already remitted this component before the adjudication order. The Tribunal clarified that the waiver granted did not cover this specific Service Tax component. If the petitioner had not remitted this amount, it could be recovered through due process of law.
Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the stay application based on the analysis and decision regarding the liability for the components provided free of cost. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing closure to the matter.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1614
Issues involved: Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary:
The applicant, a Government of India Enterprise, was alleged to have rendered services falling under Business Auxiliary Services by procuring goods for clients, which the Department considered as service charges. The applicant argued that they purchased goods on high sea sale basis and later sold them to clients, including a mark-up charge in the sales invoices. The Department contended that the mark-up charges were service charges for procurement of goods. The Tribunal analyzed sample invoices and observed that the applicant was engaged in the purchase and re-sale of goods, questioning the extension of Service Tax levy to re-sale of goods under Business Auxiliary Services. Referring to a relevant case, the Tribunal opined that mark-up charges, even if considered as profit, could not be subjected to Service Tax. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery during the appeal's pendency.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1613
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of services provided by the appellant as management, maintenance, or repair services, the applicability of Service Tax liability, and the determination of the nexus between the appellant in India and the customers.
Classification of services:
The appellant, an Indian subsidiary, provides trouble shooting services to customers who purchased equipment from their holding company. The Revenue considered this activity as management, maintenance, and repair of software supplied with the equipment. However, the Tribunal found that the service provided by the appellant to Indian customers is trouble shooting service and not management, maintenance, or repair service. The service is performed in India exclusively for Indian clients, with no part of the taxable service being performed or used outside India. The ultimate responsibility for the service provision lies with the holding company in the US, and there is no direct nexus between the appellant and the Indian customers. The Tribunal concluded that the service provided by the appellant should be treated as provided to the US company and not to the Indian customers.
Applicability of Service Tax liability:
A demand for Service Tax liability amounting to &8377; 6,06,35,955/- for the period from April 2006 to March 2010 was confirmed, along with penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Tribunal considered that the appellant had made out a case on merits for a complete waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. As a result, the stay against recovery was granted during the pendency of the appeal.
Nexus between appellant and customers:
The Tribunal emphasized that for all documentation and payment purposes, the nexus exists between the US company and the appellant in India. The service provided by the appellant is considered an input service to the US company, resulting in an import of service. The Tribunal concluded that the service received by Indian clients is actually provided by the foreign company with the assistance of the appellant in India, similar to a situation where maintenance work is entrusted to another entity while the responsibility rests with the original supplier. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of a direct service provision between the appellant and Indian customers, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1612
Issues involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on Telecommunication services
2. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal
Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on Telecommunication services
The appellant availed Cenvat credit on Telecommunication services, which was proposed to be denied due to the appellant providing services in various parts of the country without intimating the department. The bills were raised by service providers at locations where the appellant had no branch or registered office. The appellant argued that they provided services for a bank at various places and since they had no office, bills were raised at the respective locations. The appellant clarified that there was no proposal for denying credit due to non-utilization, non-receipt, or non-payment of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the billing details, but the appellant contended that such requirements were not specified in the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the appellant met the essential requirements of Cenvat Credit Rules, including receipt of service, utilization, and payment of tax. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, stating that the Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice.
Issue 2: Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal
Although the matter was initially listed for a stay application, after hearing both parties, it was determined that the issue could be finally decided. Both sides agreed to proceed without pre-deposit, and the appeal was taken up for a final decision. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded with the appeal, ultimately allowing it and granting consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1611
Issues involved: Service Tax demand on construction services u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 and invocation of extended period of limitation.
Summary:
The Commissioner confirmed a Service Tax demand on the petitioner for providing services related to construction of cottages for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds including unwarranted invocation of extended period of limitation and the service not being taxable. The construction of cottages for TTD was argued to be non-taxable as it was not primarily for commerce or industry, as clarified in Budget Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T. The Board clarified that constructions for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation, or philanthropic purposes and not for profit are non-taxable. The scope of taxable/works contract service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) was analyzed, leading to the conclusion that construction of cottages for TTD is not a taxable service. The issue of whether the accommodation provided by TTD for promoting Hindu religion amounts to a business of promoting religion was left for further examination. The waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and further proceedings were stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1610
Issues involved: Challenge to additional service tax demand, direction for pre-deposit and penalty, attachment of bank account affecting business operations, request for expedited hearing before CESTAT.
Challenge to additional service tax demand: The petitioner had challenged an additional demand for service tax of &8377; 49,90,780 u/s the audit memo dated 5-3-2010, despite having already paid &8377; 6,64,626. The Commissioner, Appeals upheld the demand and directed a pre-deposit of the entire amount along with 50% penalty. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT against this decision, which is pending.
Attachment of bank account affecting business operations: The petitioner's bank account was attached by the department, preventing them from operating their business and meeting obligations. The petitioner sought an expedited hearing before the CESTAT due to the adverse impact on their business.
Court's direction: The Court, noting the petitioner's inability to conduct business due to the attached bank account, directed the CESTAT to consider expediting the hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation, allowing the petitioner to approach the Court if further aggrieved.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1609
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest received on loans relating to earlier years.
2. Addition of stale drafts/pay orders as income u/s 41(1).
3. Levy of interest u/s 234B & 234D.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Interest Received on Loans Relating to Earlier Years:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,24,32,000 claimed by the assessee towards interest received during the period under consideration pertaining to earlier years. The Revenue contended that the assessee should follow either the cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting and not a hybrid system. The assessee argued that it followed the mercantile system except for interest on loans and non-performing assets, commission on bank guarantees, and locker rent, as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1939 and RBI Guidelines. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, noting that the assessee's method was consistent with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and validated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank V CIT (237 ITR 889). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's consistent accounting method and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
2. Addition of Stale Drafts/Pay Orders as Income u/s 41(1):
The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 73,58,708 as income of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Act, considering it a cessation of liability. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this addition. The assessee argued that these amounts were held in trust and never treated as an allowance or deduction. The Tribunal noted that the amounts were still reflected as liabilities in the books of accounts and that the RBI Circular required these amounts to be kept as liabilities for ten years before transferring to the RBI. The Tribunal found that the primary requisite for invoking section 41(1) was not established and deleted the addition, following decisions in similar cases of Canara Bank Ltd. and Vijaya Bank Ltd.
3. Levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234D:
The assessee contested the interest levied under sections 234B & 234D. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, stating that the charging of interest is consequential and mandatory. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest, if any, chargeable while giving effect to this order.
Conclusion:
The Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on the disallowance of interest and deleted the addition of stale drafts/pay orders as income. The interest levied under sections 234B & 234D was upheld but required recomputation.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1608
CENVAT credit - capital goods - Sliver/combed/carded cotton falling under Ch. 5202 - whether credit would be available when this heading remained specifically excluded from the purview of capital goods under erstwhile Rule 57Q as it stood during the material time?
-
2013 (12) TMI 1607
Amendment in shipping bill - Refund claim denied on the ground that the shipping bill does not state about duty drawback claim - Held that: - the amendment in shipping bill should have been allowed and is accordingly being allowed by this Tribunal.
Reliance placed in the case of Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (EP) [2006 (3) TMI 513 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], wherein it was held that the request for conversion of shipping bill was made in terms of the statutory rights available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section entitles the proper officer of Customs to direct amendment of any document, after it has been presented in Custom House.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
9911796707
