|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 23051 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 1389
Permission for withdrawal of petition - non-constitution of CoC - Applicant submits that claims no claims were received and hence COC is not constituted - Amicable Settlement - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that at any stage where the committee of creditors is not yet constituted, a party can approach the NCLT directly, which Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement. This will be decided after hearing all the concerned parties and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case.
This case is a fit case for the Adjudicating Authority to invoke Rule 11 of NCLT Rules and accordingly the Order of CIRP passed in this Petition is recalled and the IRP is discharged from his duties - Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1388
100% EOU - Duty Drawback - allegation that the drawback amount was paid erroneously to the respondent i.e. M/s. Narendra Tea Company (100% Export Oriented Unit) - whether the drawback is admissible to a 100%/Export Oriented Unit? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case Excise duty has been paid by bulk tea manufacturer and supplied to 100% EOU treating the same as ‘deemed export’. Therefore, Government is of view that the respondent by no stretch of imagination being a 100% EOU can claim drawback on export goods since drawback is not admissible to a 100% EOU unit in terms of General Notes 2(c) of C.B.E. & C. Notification No. 31/1999-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999. Thus the drawback in the instant case should have been claimed by the bulk tea manufacturer who has paid the Excise duty and supplied the impugned goods to the respondent who is a 100% EOU unit in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39(RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001.
Hence the Commissioner (Appeals)’ findings that 100% EOU unit is eligible for drawback in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39 (RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001 is erroneous and is set aside - Revision application allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1387
Rebate Claim - export of Pump Set 10 H.P. (I.C. Engine with Centrifugal Pump - demand rasied on account of erroneous rebate resulting from excess duty paid on impugned export goods - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The applicant had willfully omitted the classification of the impugned export goods on the excise invoices and ARE-1s and chose to pay higher rate of duty from the CENVAT account so as to encash the available CENVAT credit by way of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - It is pertinent to mention that the confirmed demands on account of erroneous rebates have been appropriated by the respondent from the subsequent rebate claims of the applicant.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the applicant chose to omit the classification of the impugned export goods with an intention to encash the accumulated CENVAT credit by paying higher rate of duty than the applicable rate, the case merits imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the applicant. Hence the lower authorities have correctly imposed penalty of ₹ 3,89,603/- under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Revision dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1386
Rectification of Mistake - monetary limit involved in the appeal - contention of Revenue is that the instructions issued by CBEC were applicable to the cases where duty dispute was less than ₹ 10 lakhs if the dispute was in respect of Customs duty - HELD THAT:- The demand was raised in respect of bill of entry dated 22-9-2014 to the tune of around ₹ 2.4 lakhs. Further demand of Customs duty of around ₹ 4.8 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-11-2013. Demand of Customs duty of around ₹ 1.5 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014. Demand of Customs duty of around ₹ 3.1 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014 and demand of Customs duty of around ₹ 2.3 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 23-7-2014. Sine Five different bills of entry were involved Revenue should have filed five different appeals before this Tribunal however they filed only one Appeal Bearing No. C/71268/2018. Therefore the said appeal was treated to be appeal against only one bill of entry.
It was also noted that in none of the consignment covered by any bill of entry demand of Customs duty was more than ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore there was no mistake apparent on the part of this Tribunal in passing the said Final Order - ROM Application dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1385
Rebate claim - rebate was allowed by partially restricting the rebate amount as per C.B.E. & C.’s Circular No. 129/40/95-CX., dated 29-5-1995 - rebate restricted on the material used in the manufacture of export goods - HELD THAT:- In N/N. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, it is clearly mentioned that the rebate of whole of duty shall be payable to the exporter subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. It is observed that the applicant removed the scrap generated during the manufacture of the export goods on payment of duty. The Notification further provides for the verification of input-output ratio by the jurisdictional Excise authorities - In the instant case, the required verification of the input-output has also been done and due permission was granted by the Excise authorities to manufacture and export the finished goods - The notification nowhere specifies that the entire quantum of duty paid inputs have to be physically contained in the export goods to be eligible for rebate. As per the notification, material should be used in manufacture or processing of export goods and the waste should be cleared on payment of duty.
Reliance of the adjudicating authority on C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 129/40/95-CX., dated 29-5-1995 pertaining to the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is farfetched since these rules have been subsequently replaced by Central Excise Rules, 2002. Moreover, this circular pertains to Notification No. 42/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994 and cannot be made applicable to Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Revision application allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1384
Penalty - Smuggling - Foreign Currency - It is observed that Tushar Kumar in his statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has contended that he was carrying the impugned forex on behalf of Virender Verma for a consideration - Government is of the view that Sh. Virender Verma and Tushar Kumar are part of a Hawala racket and have attempted to illegally smuggle a huge quantity of forex out of the country which was concealed in the inner lining of the bag - HELD THAT:- The lower authorities have failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the correct perspective and ordered the release of the impugned currency on payment of redemption fine to the noticee which should have been confiscated under Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 without giving an option of redemption.
Shri Virender Verma in his statement tendered under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 before the customs officers has stated that the impugned goods belonged to him and were kept in cash in India and he had requested for delivery of the same in Hong Kong - This observation of Commissioner (Appeals) is fallacious and is completely devoid of merit - The role of Virender Verma cannot be undermined in this Hawala racket. Government observes that Virender Verma has abetted smuggling of impugned forex and is liable for penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962.
A lesser amount of penalty has been imposed on Tushar Kumar by the adjudicating authority since he is the carrier of the impugned currency. Government holds that keeping in view gravity of the offence and the fact that the respondent is” a habitual offender, a higher quantum of penalty merits to be imposed on Tushar Kumar.
Government modifies the orders passed by the lower authorities as follows - Impugned currency is confiscated under Section 113(d), (e), (h) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - The option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is denied - A penalty of ₹ 5 lacs (Rupees Five Lacs) is imposed on Tushar Kumar under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulation, 2000 - Penalty of ₹ 7 lacs (Rupees Seven lacs) imposed on Virender Verma by the adjudicating authority under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulation, 2000 is upheld.
Application allowed in part.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1383
Approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The shareholders of the applicant companies are the best Judges of their interest, fully conversant with market trends, and therefore, their decision should not be interfered with by the Tribunal for the reason that it is not a part of judicial function to examine entrepreneurial activities and their commercial decisions. It is well settled that the Tribunal evaluating the Scheme of which sanction is sought under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act of 2013 will not ordinarily interfere with the corporate decisions of companies approved by shareholders and creditors.
Right to apply for the sanction of the Scheme has been statutorily provided under Section 230-234 of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore, it is open to the applicant companies to avail the benefits extended by statutory provisions and the Rules.
The petitioner companies have filed an affidavit confirming that no objection has been received against the Scheme from any party or from any person interested in the Scheme in any manner - It has also been affirmed in the petition that Scheme is in the interest of all the Transferor Companies and the transferee company including their shareholders, creditors, employees and all concerned.
Upon considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of the Petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme, and the report filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, official liquidator and in the absence of any objection against the Scheme, there appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme - sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Application allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1382
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- A debt in the first instance, should arise/based on legal enforceable covenant, under the provisions of the Code, the proceedings under the Code are summary in nature. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority cannot go into roving enquiry about the enforceability of the Agreement in question. As rightly pointed by the Respondent, since the Petitioner claims that the Agreement in question is binding on the parties, he can settle the issue, through Arbitration, instead of invoking provisions of the Code to recover the alleged outstanding amount. It is a settled position of law that aggrieved party, in the instant first instance, has to exhaust alternative remedy, like making representation, issuing notices, invoking arbitration as per Agreement(s) in vogue. And in case, no alternative remedy is available, aggrieved party can knock the doors of justice. And proceedings under the provisions of Code is no exception for the same, in the normal course. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the case would justify for the Petitioner to invoke Arbitration Clause since several issues to be resolved.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned claim relates to the period for 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, totalling for an amount of ₹ 1,75,16,250/-. For all these years, the Petitioner got issued the Statutory Demand Notice in question only on 11.10.2018. The Petitioner has not explained to the satisfaction of Adjudicating Authority as to how he is entitled for the amount, as per Agreement in question, since the Petitioner is entitled for payment in proportion to amount received by the Respondent and for the delay-in initiating recovery proceedings before these proceedings.
The Petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and thus the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1381
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Real Estate (Regulation And Development Act), 2016 is an act brought in force to protect the interest and to regulate the working and functioning of the real estate sector, so as to ensure that the buyers are not cheated by the developers and to ensure that the projects falling under RERA are completed within time and that amount(s) may be refunded to the buyers, when demanded by them in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, whereas the purpose of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to ensure that the companies that are in financial distress either have a change in management or are liquidated depending upon the interest gathered by it in the market. Further, the relief(s) demanded by the applicants in the instant matter before the Ld. RERA, Noida are sperate from the relief claimed by the applicants before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
The application is complete as per the requirements of section 7 of the code. Further the date of default occurred from 19.12.2018 and hence the debt is not time barred and the application is filed within the period of limitation - The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application - The Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, which remain uncontroverted by the Corporate Debtor, establishing the default in payment of the financial debt beyond doubt. In the light of facts and records the present application is admitted.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1380
Smuggling - Gold Bars - Forex and Indian currency - packaging materials and other miscellaneous goods - absolute confiscation - penalty - cross-examination of the customs officers manning x-ray machine and red channel counter as well as the witnesses present on the date of seizure in the case - HELD THAT:- From the evidence on record it is evident that Indian currency as well as huge amount of forex Dirham 1,05,410 was recovered from the PAX on 23-9-2012. The impugned currency was also not declared to the customs officers at the red channel under Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 by the PAX - It is observed that the PAX did not make the statutory declaration on his arrival to the customs authorities since the Forex (UAE Dirham 1,05,410) carried by him was much higher than the prescribed limit under the FEMA, 1999 read with Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000.
The legal provisions of FEMA, 1999, the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000, Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11 clearly stipulate that an attempt to smuggle foreign currency and Indian currency is ‘prohibited’ and merits confiscation under provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
In the case of Ram Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs [2015 (1) TMI 1126 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner disallowed release of confiscated forex to be redeemed under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The ratio of judgment squarely applies to the present case - Therefore the impugned Indian and foreign currency seized from the PAX in violation of the provisions of FEMA, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 read with Sections 2(33) and 11 of Customs Act, 1962 falling into the category of ‘prohibited goods’ has been correctly confiscated under Section 111(d), (m) & (o) of Customs Act, 1962 by the adjudicating authority which has been upheld by the impugned order-in-appeal.
Penalty under Section 112 and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the gravity of the offence the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the penalty from ₹ 30 lacs to ₹ 5 lacs is erroneous and is set aside - It is observed that this is not a case for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in waiving the penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable and is upheld - In view of the seriousness of the offence wherein 70 (Seventy) gold biscuits weighing 8164.80 grams and valued at ₹ 2,51,89, 735/- and forex 1,05,410 UAE Dirham have been smuggled by the PAX, Government imposes a penalty of ₹ 40 lacs on the PAX under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1379
Denial of the benefit of advance authorization - denial of benefit of N/N. 96/2009-Cus. on the ground that the advance authorizations on the basis of which the appellants are claiming the benefit and which were debited at the time of provisional assessment are not valid at the time of finalization of assessment - HELD THAT:- The issue has been deliberated upon by the Policy Relaxation Committee where it was held that “The Committee noted that the applicant has imported goods within validity of Authorizations. Therefore, no further revalidation is required. Imports made within permissible CIF value and within the validity of the Authorization shall be regularized after final assessment by the Custom Authority. Excess imports, if any, shall be regularized on payment of applicable duty and interest.”
Moreover, if there are delays in finalization of provisional assessment and during this period the validity of an Authorization expires, it cannot have any impact on the benefits available under the said Authorizations - In the instant case it is seen that at the time of import the authorizations were valid and had sufficient balance to take care of not only the declared value but also the enhanced value.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1378
Validity of reference order dated 22 January, 2019 - it was alleged that specific ‘point or points’ on which the Members differed were required to be recorded while making the reference to a Third Member, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 - miscellaneous application has been submitted before the President with a prayer that the Bench referring the matter should have specifically stated the ‘point or points’ on which they differed to a Third Member or in the alternative the matter may be directed to be heard by another Bench.
HELD THAT:- In paragraph 10 of the judgment, it has been noted that the Counsel for the petitioner was orally directed by the Bench to approach the President of the Tribunal to ensure that the provisions of Section 129C of the Act were complied with by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. The President observed that Section 129C(5) mandatorily requires, if the Members were equally divided, to frame the point or points on which they differed, but felt handicapped in making any order. The Division Bench, thereafter, observed that the Members who expressed dissenting opinion, were bound by the statute to state the ‘point or points’ of difference and make reference after making such statement and the entire appeal cannot be referred to a Third Member.
In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, as noted in the application filed appeal, M/s. Sun Tex India, and the provisions of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act as also the four decisions of High Court, it is considered necessary to refer the matter to the Hon’ble Members constituting the Division Bench to specifically formulate the point or points of difference of opinion while placing the matter before the President for nominating a third Member to decide the point or points of difference of opinion.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1377
Termination of tender - imposition of penalties - forfeiture of performance of bank guarantee, security amount, and penalty towards risk and purchase cost - Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the CIRP proceedings in respect of the respondent company were initiated and moratorium was declared by an order of this Tribunal passed on 06.07.2017. As on the said date, the common award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Yad Ram Meena holding that the applicant is liable to pay an amount of ₹ 7,72,86,109/- with 18% interest per annum on the said amount w.e.f. the date of filing of the arbitration till actual payment was in force as the objections filed by both the sides were dismissed and the said common award was upheld by the Commercial Court, Jaipur vide its common order dated 28.09.2016, though two separate appeals were filed by the applicant, which were pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. Further, admittedly on 10.05.2018, on which date the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench passed a judgment in the appeals preferred by the applicant, quashing the judgment of the Commercial Court, Jaipur as well as the arbitration award, the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Code was very much in operation and the said moratorium finally came to an end only on 17.05.2018 on which date, this Tribunal passed the order of liquidation of the respondent company.
It is the settled principle of law that any order passed or any action taken in respect of any of the issues covered under Section 14 of the Code, during the period of moratorium are non-est in the eye of law.
Since the order dated 10.05.2018 passed in the appeals filed by the applicant, was admittedly passed during the moratorium period, the applicant's claim which was based on the said order dated 10.05.2018, is inadmissible - Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1376
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of uts debt - existence of debt and dispuyte or not - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that as to claim amount is concerned, differences are in existence in between the parties and it is also evident on record that the Operational Creditor terminated rendering services to the Corporate Debtor before completion of the tenure of their agreement, whereby unless it is finally determined and agreed between the parties as to how much is to be paid to the Operational Creditor by the Corporate Debtor, it cannot be called as, the Applicant has proved the existence of debt and existence of default between the parties.
It is not the case of either of them, questioning veracity of the correspondence passed between the parties. By looking at the entire correspondence in totality, it is clear that the claim amount raised by the Operational Creditor has been disputed which is falling within the compass of definition u/s.5(6)(a) with regard to the existence of amount on debt as well as with regard to the services rendered by the Operational Creditor because in the Corporate Debtor correspondence, it has been mentioned that because of frequent tripping, the Corporate Debtor was forced to take services from the TANGEDCO at higher price and also mentioned that supply of services by the Operational Creditor were terminated before completion of tenure as agreed between the parties and also assessed some amount to be deducted from the claim of the Operational Creditor towards stoppage as well as tripping, therefore, we cannot hold that the claim mentioned by the Operational Creditor is devoid of existence of dispute between the parties.
The Corporate Debtor having already raised issues with regard to not only on the notices returned but also on the claim amount - this Petitioner claim is hit by existence of dispute - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1375
Permission for withdrawal of petition - It is the case of the Interim Resolution Professional that this Tribunal admitted the petition filed under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 on 04.10.2019 for initiation of CIRP, granting moratorium and appointment of IRP - HELD THAT:- This Application is filed under Section 12A of I & B Code, 2016, Read with 30 A (1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Corporate insolvency Resolution process) Regulations, 2016. The Petition filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor was admitted by this tribunal on 04.10.2019 and ordered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor. Interim Resolution Professional reported to the Tribunal that Parties settled the matter and requested the tribunal to withdraw the Petition - IRP has stated that he has enclosed the copies of DD's acknowledged by operational creditor and copy of settlement including Form FA. Thus the procedure prescribed under Regulation 30A (1) (a) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), 2016 has been followed. This Adjudicating Authority has power under Section 12A Read with Regulation 30A (1)(a) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) 2016 to permit for withdrawal of the application even after admission of the Petition.
Application allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1374
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor faield to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - whether NCLT can order possession of the property of Corporate Applicant to facilitate the CIRP process and allow the Resolution Professional to take possession of the assets of Corporate Applicant, pending adjudication of pending suit filed by Corporate Applicant seeking possession of the shed from the applicant? - HELD THAT:- Section 60(5) and (b)(c) of the Code empowers NCLT to entertain the dispute raised in the suit, section 63 of the Code further bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters pertaining to the NCLAT, section 231 of the Code also bar the jurisdiction of the civil court from granting any injunction in respect of any action taken or in pursuance of any order passed by the Adjudicating authority under this Code. This code is a self-contained legislation conferring the supervisory powers on the NCLT over CIRP process right from the stage of application being made for initiation of the CIRP process to the completion of the CIRP/ Liquidation as the case may be - Upon conjoint reading of section 60(5), section 63, section 231 and section 238, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded related to the matters related to I & B code. Therefore, it can be held that NCLT can order possession of the property of Corporate Applicant to facilitate the CIRP process and allow the Resolution Professional to take possession of the assets of Corporate Applicant.
It is the case of Corporate Applicant that he is seeking possession in the suit, whereas the Applicant is only claiming recovery of monies in his suit. There are no restraint orders passed in both the cases. Therefore, the Resolutions Professional's claim for possession of shed before the adjudicating authority in view of CIRP order, can be entertained under the I & B Code.
In view of the overriding powers under section 238 of the Code and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016, and it is directed that Resolution Professional/ Liquidator shall be allowed to take possession of the Shed from the Applicant - Application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1373
Levy of Duty - Process amounting to manufacture - preparation of ‘printing paste’ - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant way back in 1990 alleging that the appellant had manufactured and captively consumed printing paste in their factory premises falling under Chapter sub-heading 3204.29 but failed to discharge duty on the same - the appellant had produced purchase invoice of dyes issued by M/s Jaysynth Dyes Stuff (I) Ltd., BPCL, India Chemicals indicating that the dyes purchased by them were standardized one. Also, SASMIRA’s certificate produced by the appellants reveals that printing paste prepared by the appellant are of short shelf life and cannot be marketable. Thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence and in absence of any contrary evidence produced by the Revenue to show that the printing paste manufactured by the appellant in their factory premises was from non-standardized, non-formulated or non-prepared dyes, the order confirming the duty holding that the printing paste prepared by the appellant resulted into ‘manufacture’ within definition of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly dutiable under Chapter sub-heading 3204.29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1372
Banking and Other Financial Services - late payment charges - delayed deposit of instalment of higher-purchase charges by the customers - C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 3-8-2011 - HELD THAT:- The amount received by the appellant on account of delayed payment charges by the customers is not to be treated as consideration for provision of service and therefore, does not form part of the value of taxable service as clarified by C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 3-8-2011 - As the C.B.E. & C. has clarified that the delayed payment charges are not includible in the taxable value of service, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on these incidental charges received on account of delayed payment of instalment by the customers.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1371
TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - payments made for disbursement of labour charges to labour sardars - As per assessee there was no contract between the assessee and the labour sardars, without which there cannot be any application of tds obligations - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/s Kwality Construction [2016 (11) TMI 667 - ITAT KOLKATA] Tribunal relying on its various identical decisions, has upheld the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act holding that labour sardars are not labour suppliers and are facilitators for payments -there is nothing on record to suggest that the payment to labourers were paid to the contractors. On the contrary, assessee has made payment to labourers directly and in support of its claim, Ld. AR of assessee has produced the muster roll. In this regard, Ld. DR failed to bring any defect / information from the muster roll which suggested that the labour charges paid by assessee are subject to TDS. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1370
Approval of the Composite Scheme of Arrangement - Section 230 to 232 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Despite notice being served, there is no representation from the Department of Income Tax or from SEBI. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Companies referred to Clause 16.2. of the Scheme and stated that all tax assessment proceedings/appeals of whatsoever nature by or against the Residual Transferor Company shall be continued and/or enforced by the Transferee Company - The Tribunal is of the view that since the Transferee Company is not being dissolved and Clause 8 and 16 of the Scheme provides the savings in relation to taxes as well, all the Tax authorities are entitled to proceed against the Transferee Company in accordance with law, if any amount is found due and payable.
The Independent Statutory Auditors of the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company have filed the Certificate in relation to compliance with the Accounting Standards, and certified that the proposed scheme is in conformity with the accounting standards specified under Section 133 of the Act, read with relevant rules as applicable. Thus, the Petitioner Company has complied with proviso to Section 230 (7)/Section 232 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
In view of absence of any other objections having been placed on record before this Tribunal and since all the requisite statutory compliances having been fulfilled, this Tribunal, sanctions the Composite Scheme of Arrangement, annexed as Annexure "13" with the Company Petition as well as the prayer made therein - the scheme is approved.
............
|
9911796707
