|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 558 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 621
Maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal - According to the appellant, his establishment did not get any response from the market nor could get any business, he relieved all the employees from their services and closed down the establishment. However, unaware of the fact that with the closure of establishment, he was also required to surrender the Provident Fund code, he did not take any step in this direction. he received summons from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Vadodara, Gujarat directing him to appear before him in person. He appeared and informed the RPFC about the closure of the establishment. However, the RPFC, Vadodara passed orders under Section 7Aof the Provident Fund Act directing the appellant to pay the provident fund dues. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order and he preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is located in Delhi. This appeal was dismissed. Appellate Tribunal order, assailed by the appellant by filing the writ petition in this Court, dismissal thereof for want of territorial jurisdiction permitting the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.
HELD THAT :- In the present case, we find that since the impugned orders are passed by the appellate tribunal in Delhi and this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter and no case of forum non conveniens of this Court (or for that matter forum conveniens of Gujarat High Court) is made out, therefore, this Court is competent to deal with the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back for disposal of the writ petition on merits.
Doctrine of forum conveniens - "The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses." with reference to a situation where original authority is in one State and the seat of the appellate authority is located in another State. the writ would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner which has right to choose his forum, we are of the view that primacy to the freedom given to the petitioner needs to be respected. Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the doctrine of forum conveniens has to be applied.
-
2012 (2) TMI 620
Refusing registration to the respondent/institution u/s 12AA after recording finding of surplus generation - Held that:- All the three activities, namely running of swimming pool, production centre, printing press and agricultural income and found that those activities could not have been considered as independent activities carried out by the assessee with profit motive. The dominant object of the assessee of advancing the cause of education has been accepted.
Search and seizure operation u/s 132 on 2.8.2007. This portion has not been looked into either by the Commissioner of Income Tax or Income Tax Appellate Authority. Mr.Dewani has pointed out that the claim under Section 12AA was for the period commencing from 1.4.2008 and we find it correct.
-
2012 (2) TMI 619
The Supreme Court granted leave and ordered a stay on penalty for interest pending appeal. Citation: 2012 (2) TMI 619 - SC Order. High court reference: 2011 (7) TMI 288 - DELHI HIGH COURT. Judges: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR. Petitioner represented by Mr. Harish N. Salve and others. Respondent represented by Mr. Gaurab Banerji and others.
-
2012 (2) TMI 618
The Bombay High Court admitted the appeals for final hearing on 09.07.2012 based on substantial questions of law regarding additional depreciation on windmills, jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263, and assessment without proper inquiry by the AO. The appellant was directed to serve a fresh notice upon the assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 617
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of premium on transfer fees and TDR premium received by a society for assessment year 2004-05.
Premium on transfer fees:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of premium on transfer fees of `10,60,000 received from members. The CIT(A) relied on a decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind Coop. Hsg. Socy. The Revenue contended that the case law cited by the CIT(A) pertained to assessment years prior to the notification dated 9.8.2001, of the Govt. of Maharashtra for Co. Hsg. Societies. The Revenue argued that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the notification dated 27.11.1989, the principle of mutuality would not apply as the society had charged more than the permissible limits. The Revenue asserted that if the society retained the excess amount, it would be considered profit-making and subject to tax.
TDR premium:
The Revenue also challenged the deletion of a sum of `3,33,662, being TDR premium received from the members. The CIT(A) relied on a decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind CHS. After considering the rival contentions, it was found that the assessee was a plot society, not a flat society, and thus the notification dated 9th August 2001, issued by the Govt. of Maharashtra, did not apply. The first appellate authority had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and granted relief to the assessee. Since all receipts were from the members, the order of the first appellate authority was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the decision of the CIT(A) regarding both the premium on transfer fees and the TDR premium, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 22.2.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 616
Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the decision of the apex Court in the case of Shambu Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT [2003 (1) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that where the main intention is letting out property or any portion thereof the same may be considered as rental income or income from house property.
Held that:- Both in the case of earlier Assessment Years as well as in subsequent Assessment Years i.e. AY 1998-99 and 2000-01, such income had been assessed as business income. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee states that it is only in the case of AYs 1997-98, 2001-02 and 2005-06 that the Revenue sought to take a different position. Of these three years, the appeals relating to the first two years AY 1997-98, 2001-02 have been dismissed and the matter has attained finality. In that view of the matter, the view which has been taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The order of the Tribunal dated 29 August 2008 for AY 1997-98 and 2001-02 in fact did take note of the decision in the case of Shambhu Investments.[SUPRA]
-
2012 (2) TMI 615
Issues involved: Determination of nature of receipt - Revenue or capital expenditure.
Summary:
The appeal by the department was against the order of Ld. C.I.T.(A)-I, Kolkata dated 20/06/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee, under the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India, is engaged in ship building, ship repairing, and general engineering. The ld. A.O. added &8377; 2 crores, received from the Government for plant & machinery upkeep, as revenue expenditure. The ld. C.I.T.(A) found that the receipt was actually in the form of equity capital and not revenue. The assessee provided a utilization certificate to support this claim. The ld. C.I.T.(A) accepted the claim of the assessee. The departmental representative relied on the order of ld. A.O., while the counsel for the assessee supported the order of ld. C.I.T.(A) and presented a letter from the Govt. of India confirming the nature of the receipt as equity capital. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the ld. C.I.T.(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the receipt was a capital receipt based on the provided evidence.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. C.I.T.(A) that the receipt of &8377; 2 crores from the Government was a capital receipt and not revenue, based on the nature of the receipt as equity capital for plant and machinery renewal and replacement. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ld. C.I.T.(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
-
2012 (2) TMI 614
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of interest income as business income eligible for exemption u/s 10A.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Liberty India Vs CIT.
3. Binding nature of coordinate bench decisions and the concept of per incuriam.
Summary:
1. Treatment of Interest Income as Business Income Eligible for Exemption u/s 10A:
The appellant Assessing Officer challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest income as business income eligible for exemption u/s 10A. The CIT(A) had followed the Tribunal's orders in the assessee's own cases for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, which allowed such treatment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the specific definition in Section 10A(4) focuses on "profits of the business of the undertaking," which has a broader scope than "profits derived by the undertaking."
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Liberty India Vs CIT:
The Assessing Officer argued that the CIT(A)'s decision contradicted the Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty India Vs CIT, which held that the term "derived" covers sources not beyond the first degree. However, the Tribunal noted that Section 10A(4) provides a specific definition that should be followed, which includes the profits of the business of the undertaking rather than limiting it to the first degree of derivation.
3. Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions and the Concept of Per Incuriam:
The Departmental Representative contended that the coordinate bench decision in Livingstone Jewellery Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT was per incuriam as it did not consider the Liberty India ruling. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that a later decision that does not consider an earlier binding precedent is itself per incuriam and lacks precedence value. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial consistency and the binding nature of coordinate bench decisions unless overruled by a larger bench or higher court. The Tribunal declined to refer the matter to a Special Bench, as the binding precedents favored the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to treat the interest income as business income eligible for exemption u/s 10A, and emphasized the binding nature of coordinate bench decisions and the specific definition provided in Section 10A(4).
-
2012 (2) TMI 613
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of 25% of alleged non-genuine purchases.
2. Restriction of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Rejection of books of account u/s 145.
4. Applicability of Section 69C for unexplained expenditure.
Summary:
Issue 1: Confirmation of 25% of Alleged Non-Genuine Purchases
The assessee contested the confirmation of 25% of alleged non-genuine purchases from various concerns of the Rohit Panwala group for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the statement of Rohit Panwala, who admitted issuing bogus bills without selling any raw materials. The Tribunal found that the purchases from the Panwala group were not genuine and upheld the rejection of books of account u/s 145. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases instead of 25%, citing a similar case where 12.5% disallowance was deemed appropriate.
Issue 2: Restriction of Addition Made by the AO
The Revenue appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition made by the AO. The AO had added the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases to the taxable income of the assessee u/s 69C, deeming it unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee must have made actual purchases from the open market to conduct its dyeing and printing business. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition but modified the percentage of disallowance to 12.5%.
Issue 3: Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145
The AO rejected the books of account u/s 145, citing serious defects due to the inclusion of bogus purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal both upheld this rejection, agreeing that the purchases from the Panwala group were fictitious and that the assessee had inflated its purchase figures. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business activities required actual purchases of colors and chemicals, which were likely made from the open market.
Issue 4: Applicability of Section 69C for Unexplained Expenditure
The AO had added the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. The Ld. CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the amounts paid by cheque to the Panwala group were returned in cash to the assessee, thus explaining the source of expenditure. The Tribunal concurred, holding that the addition should be made for bogus purchases rather than unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, as the source of funds was explained.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases declared from the Panwala group. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for actual purchases to conduct the assessee's business and found the rejection of books of account u/s 145 justified. The addition was to be made for bogus purchases, not unexplained expenditure u/s 69C.
-
2012 (2) TMI 612
Issues involved: Mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, waiver of penalties.
Summary:
Mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills:
The case involved the appellant, M/s. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., filing two shipping bills where the goods mentioned did not match with the actual goods found during examination. The adjudicating authority noted that the mis-declaration was not willful, but there was negligence on the part of the exporter. A penalty of &8377; 50,000 was imposed on the appellant for this negligence.
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:
The goods were allowed for export after investigation, but a redemption fine of &8377; 60,00,000 was imposed on the appellant and a penalty of &8377; 20,00,000 on the CHA. However, the Tribunal waived the redemption fine and reduced the penalty on the appellant to &8377; 50,000. The penalty on the CHA was also waived.
Waiver of penalties:
After considering the contentions of both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that while there was negligence on the part of the exporter, there was no willful attempt to mis-declare the goods. As a result, the Tribunal waived the redemption fine, reduced the penalty on the appellant, and waived the penalty on the CHA. The appeals and stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (2) TMI 611
Issues involved: Application for FL3 license rejection, eligibility post amendment to Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules, consideration of application based on previous recommendation.
In the judgment, the petitioner's application for FL3 license was initially rejected due to lack of recommendation from respondents 3 and 4 and the objectionable location of the proposed Hotel. However, upon re-consideration, the 2nd respondent directed fresh measurement of the distance from the objectionable temple, leading to a recommendation for the license based on reports confirming compliance with prescribed limits. Despite this, no decision was made, prompting the petitioner to seek court intervention to set aside the initial rejection (Ext.P6).
Regarding the impact of the amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner may not be eligible post-amendment. However, it was acknowledged that the application was forwarded with a recommendation for the license before the introduction of the amendment.
The petitioner's counsel argued that since the application was recommended before the amendment, the petitioner should be entitled to the license based on the rule in effect at the time of the recommendation. The court refrained from determining the petitioner's eligibility, emphasizing the need for the competent authority to make a fresh decision based on the available records.
Consequently, the court directed respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application in light of the received reports and the changed law, ensuring a decision is made promptly, within one month of receiving the judgment, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
-
2012 (2) TMI 610
Issues Involved: Interpretation of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act regarding the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government for claiming deduction and the effect of deletion of this requirement.
Summary:
Issue 1: Requirement of Central Government Approval under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act
The assessee, a company engaged in finance and development projects, claimed exemption for interest income as capital in nature for the assessment year 1999-2000. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as revenue receipt and brought it to tax, noting that the prior approval of the Central Government had not been obtained by the assessee to claim the benefit under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the Requirement of Central Government Approval
Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act deals with special reserve created by financial corporations engaged in providing long-term finance for development projects. The provision required prior approval from the Central Government before 01.04.2000. The assessee had applied for approval on 28.03.2000, but approval was not granted. However, the provision was deleted from 01.04.2000 onwards, making Central Government approval unnecessary. The Tribunal held that the requirement of approval was procedural and not mandatory, especially since the CBDT had not rejected the application. The Tribunal extended the benefit of deduction to the assessee, considering the public interest in infrastructure development.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the provision was enacted to benefit public corporations involved in infrastructure development. As the requirement of Central Government approval was deleted and the CBDT had not rejected the application, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 609
Issues involved: Compliance with earlier court order, supply of documents, opportunity for cross-examination, jurisdiction of Adjudication Order, maintainability of writ petition after amendment.
Compliance with earlier court order: The petitioner sought directions for compliance with a previous court order to supply all documents related to the case. Allegations were made that both relied upon and non-relied upon documents were not supplied, and the petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, rendering the Adjudication Order without jurisdiction.
Opportunity for cross-examination: The court emphasized that there is no right to cross-examine witnesses before the reply to the show cause notice is filed and before adjudication commences. The petitioner's contention that the opportunity for cross-examination was denied due to non-supply of documents was considered, and the impugned order in this regard was set aside.
Supply of documents: The court held that the petitioner was provided with relied upon documents in the form of a DVD, but non-relied upon documents were not collected despite repeated requests. The petitioner's claim of non-supply of documents and denial of cross-examination was viewed as an attempt to avoid filing an appeal.
Jurisdiction of Adjudication Order: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should file a statutory appeal against the order in the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was given a week to file the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, with the Tribunal to consider the time spent in pursuing the writ petition in the High Court.
-
2012 (2) TMI 608
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act.
2. Treatment of Income from Capital Gains as Business Income.
3. Adequacy of Inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act:
The assessee contested the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) in assuming powers u/s 263 of the IT Act, arguing that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT observed that the AO accepted the income under "Short Term Capital Gain" without adequate inquiry, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's jurisdiction, noting that the AO's assessment lacked detailed investigation and reasoning, thus justifying the invocation of section 263.
2. Treatment of Income from Capital Gains as Business Income:
The CIT directed the AO to reclassify the income from "Short Term Capital Gain" to "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession," based on the nature of the assessee's transactions in shares and mutual funds. The assessee argued that the shares were held as investments, not stock in trade. However, the Tribunal supported the CIT's view, emphasizing the need for proper verification of the nature and frequency of transactions to determine the correct classification of income.
3. Adequacy of Inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order was cryptic and lacked discussion on the nature of the capital gains. The AO did not conduct a thorough inquiry or provide reasons for accepting the assessee's claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO is expected to investigate and ascertain the correctness of the return filed. The CIT's action to invoke section 263 was deemed appropriate due to the lack of adequate inquiry by the AO.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order u/s 263, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The CIT was justified in revising the assessment order due to the AO's failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the nature of the income, thereby making the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
-
2012 (2) TMI 607
Detention and seizure of betel nuts - the impugned order was shown to have been made on 07.06.2011 at 18.00 hrs. although the trucks and their drivers were detained on 06.06.2011 itself while the drivers had parked their trucks at the Petrol Pump for taking tea, but the said trucks and drivers were produced before the Magistrate on 09.06.2011 - Held that: - The documents on record clearly show that the petitioner was not only the consignor but also the transporter of articles in question arranging the trucks from Mandies for reaching betel nuts to their destinations, namely to the consignee - this court has no option but to come to the conclusion that the impugned order of detention and seizure of betel nuts and the trucks on which it was loaded are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Furthermore, the impugned confiscation notice dated 18.11.2011 issued u/s 124 of the Act during the pendency of this writ petition is based merely on the aforesaid seizure, which has already been held to be illegal, arbitrary and perverse and hence when the base, namely the seizure goes every structure thereon including the confiscation notice also will have to follow - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (2) TMI 606
Issues involved: Assessment of stock transfer value u/s 25(2) of the KVAT Act, discrepancy between stock transfer value and sales turnover, eligibility of discount as deduction.
Assessment of stock transfer value: The petitioner, a Government of Tamil Nadu Company, challenged the assessment of stock transfer value ignoring the declared sales turnover. The petitioner contended that tax should be levied only on the taxable turnover after excluding discounts as per S.25(2) of the KVAT Act. The Court noted that the authorities failed to consider how discount should be treated as an eligible deduction. It was held that sales tax under the KVAT Act is payable only on sales turnover after granting admissible deductions, including eligible discount.
Discrepancy between stock transfer value and sales turnover: The department argued that the difference between stock transfer value and sales turnover should be assessed in addition to sales turnover. However, the Court emphasized that such assessment cannot be made unless it is proven to be a suppression of sales turnover. The matter was deemed to require detailed examination by the assessing officer, including verification of invoices and clarification on the basis of adopting stock transfer value above sale price.
Eligibility of discount as deduction: The Court directed the Assessing Officer to vacate the Tribunal's orders and remand the matter for further examination. The petitioner was instructed to explain the basis of showing a higher value on stock transfer than the realizable market value for the goods. The Assessing Officer was directed to give credit for the full amount of tax paid and to reconsider the matter after allowing the petitioner to produce invoices and clarify the basis of the stock transferred value.
-
2012 (2) TMI 605
Issues involved: Suit for perpetual injunction for trademark infringement, unauthorized concession by counsel leading to decree, review application dismissal challenge.
The respondent filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction for infringement of the registered trademark 'ARCHIES' in Class-28 and Class-16 under The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, based on Registration No.477177 and 519457B. The defendant was accused of manufacturing and selling photo-frames and wall-clocks using the trademark 'ARCHIES'.
The appellant suffered a decree due to a statement made by the counsel without the defendant's authorization. A review was sought, claiming the concession was unauthorized, but the Review Application was dismissed on May 15, 2003.
Challenges were made in RFA(OS) No.21/2010 against the original decree dated May 17, 2000, and in FAO(OS) No.257/2003 against the order dismissing the review sought by the defendant.
Both appeals were listed together, and a settlement was reached between the parties. The terms of the settlement were recorded in the statement made in Court by Sh.Om Prakash Garg, accepted by the respondent's Director Sh.Jagdish Moolchandani.
As per the settlement statement, FAO(OS) No.257/2003 was dismissed as infructuous, and RFA(OS) No.21/2010 was disposed of by decreeing the suit filed by the respondent based on the compromise terms. The terms of the compromise were included in the statement made by Sh.Om Prakash Garg, forming part of the decree.
The parties were ordered to bear their own costs in the suit and the appeal.
-
2012 (2) TMI 604
Deduction u/s 80IA - Company formed with the objective of dealing in finance and investment - Held that:- Absence of any nexus between the impugned interest income and the industrial undertaking, the claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act is untenable.
subsidy received being in the nature of capital receipt - disallowance of foreign travel expenses
-
2012 (2) TMI 603
Issues involved: Appeals against disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the IT Act for assessment year 2007-08.
Common Issue - Disallowance of Deduction: The appeals involved the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the IT Act, pertaining to 30% of annual income, on the grounds that rent received from letting/renting of shops/offices in a commercial complex and space for advertisement constituted business income rather than 'Income from House Property.'
Preceding Year's Decision: The identical issue was present for the assessment year 2006-07, where the claim of the assessee regarding the income from letting/renting of shops/space as 'Income from House Property' was initially rejected by lower authorities. However, on second appeal before the Tribunal, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee based on the development of the commercial complex and the nature of rental income received.
Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to legal precedents such as PVG Raju case (66 ITR 122), East India Housing and Land Development Trust case (42 ITR 49), and Chugandas & Co. case (55 ITR 17) to support the position that income from letting out properties should be assessed as 'Income from House Property' and not as business income, especially when properties are not rented out temporarily or for a short period.
Decision and Relief: Considering the facts and legal principles, the Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as 'Income from House Property' and directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 24(a) accordingly. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the assessees based on the precedent set in the preceding year's order.
Interest Charges: The remaining issue pertained to the charging of interest u/s 234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow consequential relief under section 234D and to consider any impact on withdrawal of interest under section 244A based on the allowed grounds.
Final Decision: Ground No. 1 in both appeals was dismissed as not pressed, while the appeals of the assessees were allowed in part. The order was pronounced on 02.02.2012, granting relief to the assessees regarding the disallowance of deduction and providing directions on interest charges.
-
2012 (2) TMI 602
Issues involved: Application to dispense with pre-deposit of duty confirmed for the period February 2005 to January 2010, along with penalty imposition.
Summary:
1. The appellant, a unit of M/s Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., was engaged in manufacturing galvanised steel parts of transmission towers. The demand comprised two parts:
- Approximately &8377; 2.00 crores confirmed for February 2005 to April 2007 due to a previous dispute resolved in their favor.
- About &8377; 4.13 crores for undervaluation of products cleared for job work from May 2007 to January 2010.
2. The appellant argued a bona fide belief in not paying duty due to past dispute resolution and entitlement to Notification No. 74/93. The Revenue contended duty liability under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 73 from 2003 onwards.
3. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid &8377; 3.86 crores out of the &8377; 4.13 crores demanded for undervaluation, thus dispensing with the need for further pre-deposit.
4. Regarding the &8377; 2.00 crores duty confirmed for February 2005 to April 2007, the Tribunal held the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the ongoing dispute and the appellant's duty payments from May 2007 onwards. The Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition for this amount as well.
5. The pre-deposit of interest and penalty was also disposed of, with the stay petition being allowed accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
