|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 686 Records
-
2009 (6) TMI 911
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, consideration of stay petition, examination of questions of law raised by Revenue in appeals against a single judge's order, and a request to await the decision of a special leave petition.
Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Miscellaneous Writ Petition was allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
Consideration of Stay Petition:
The prayer for stay in Misc. Writ Petition seeking stay was found not to survive for consideration due to the disposal of the main appeals.
Examination of Questions of Law:
The appeals were directed against a single judge's order, where the Revenue raised questions of law. The court noted that the grounds urged by the Revenue were already examined in a previous case and dismissed. The Revenue requested to admit the appeals and await the decision of a special leave petition, but the court could not consider this request based on the respondent-assessee's undertaking to abide by the assessment order.
Dismissal of Appeals:
The court dismissed the appeals as there was no need to admit them and await the decision of the special leave petition since the grounds raised were already considered in a previous case. The appeals were dismissed for the reasons stated in the order passed in the aforementioned case.
-
2009 (6) TMI 910
Permission of storing the goods outside factory premises - Held that: - The shortage of space is one of the reasons which may be a guiding factor for seeking permission to store the goods outside the factory premises under Rule 4(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also to be noted that no assessee would like to store his goods outside the factory premises, as, such storing of the goods outside the factory premises is open to many vagaries of nature including theft, pilferage, etc. If the assessee applies for such permission, he must be doing it so under compelling situation. In our opinion, the learned Commissioner should consider such compelling reasons before coming to any conclusion - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (6) TMI 909
Issues:
1. Appeal against setting aside demand of interest and penalty on improper Cenvat Credit availed by the respondent.
2. Respondent's contention of being unaware of improper invoices.
3. Discharge of interest and penalty by the respondent during the investigation.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the demand of interest and penalty on the improper Cenvat Credit availed by the respondent. The Revenue contended that the respondent had availed Cenvat Credit on wrong invoices issued by a registered dealer, leading to fraudulent passing of credit on 'Pig Iron' to unregistered manufacturers. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties and interest. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of interest and penalty, stating that the respondent had deposited the entire amount before the show cause notice. The Tribunal held that the respondent's intention to avail wrong credit fell under the provisions for penalty imposition, thus upholding the setting aside of interest but rejecting the challenge to setting aside penalties.
Issue 2:
The respondent's counsel argued that the respondent was unaware of the improper invoices, claiming they held Central Excise Registration for manufacturing Cast Iron, Castings, and availed Cenvat Credit on these inputs without knowledge of the dealer's actions. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had discharged the entire Cenvat Credit and interest amount during the investigation, indicating cooperation. The respondent did not challenge this part of the proceedings, and the Tribunal found the respondent's contention of being unaware of the improper invoices justifiable, leading to the setting aside of penalties.
Issue 3:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed availed and utilized the Cenvat Credit, making them liable to pay interest. Despite the respondent's claim of being unaware of the improper invoices, the Tribunal upheld the setting aside of penalties due to lack of contrary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal partly upheld the Revenue's appeal by setting aside the interest demand but rejected the challenge to setting aside penalties, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
-
2009 (6) TMI 908
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Injectors.
2. Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA, 1985).
3. Manufacture and marketability of Nozzle and Nozzle Holders.
4. Availability of exemption under various Notifications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Construction of Injectors:
The appellants argued that Injectors are manufactured in a continuous process and that Nozzle Holders do not exist as separate commodities before the Injectors are made. The lower authorities, however, determined that Nozzle Holders are intermediate products used in the assembly of Injectors. They relied on statements from company employees and a Chartered Engineer's certificate, which outlined the manufacturing process of Injectors and Nozzle Holders. The Tribunal found that while the Nozzle Holder does not emerge before the Injector, it is identifiable and cleared separately with duty paid.
2. Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA, 1985):
The Commissioner (Appeals) classified Nozzle and Nozzle Holders under Chapter Heading 84.09 as parts of internal combustion engines, applicable irrespective of their use in vehicular or non-vehicular applications. This classification was accepted and not contested by the appellants.
3. Manufacture and Marketability of Nozzle and Nozzle Holders:
The appellants contended that Nozzle Holders are not independently manufactured but emerge only after Injectors are assembled and tested. They argued that Nozzles used for captive consumption are not marketable as they do not undergo the Korex dipping process, which is essential for marketability. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the burden of proving marketability was on the Department, which it failed to discharge. The Nozzle used in the manufacture of Injectors in its captively consumed form is not marketable.
4. Availability of Exemption under Various Notifications:
- Notification No. 217/85-C.E., dated 8-10-1985: The appellants claimed exemption for Nozzles and Nozzle Holders used in the manufacture of Injectors. The lower authorities denied this, stating that Chapter X Procedure does not equate to remission of duty and that the specific exclusion of Nozzles and Nozzle Holders in the notification applied. The Tribunal, however, referred to a Board Circular clarifying that parts used in the manufacture of component parts for diesel engines are also exempt, thus granting the exemption to Nozzles and Nozzle Holders used in Injectors.
- Notification No. 75/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986: The Tribunal found that Nozzles and Nozzle Holders, even when coupled to form Injectors, are entitled to exemption as original equipment parts in the manufacture of internal combustion engines, as clarified by a Trade Notice from the Hyderabad Collectorate. The Commissioner (Appeals) had erroneously dismissed this notice due to jurisdictional issues, which the Tribunal overruled.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that:
1. There is no independent manufacture of Nozzle Holders in the construction of Injectors.
2. The classification under CETA, 1985, was not contested and thus accepted.
3. The Nozzle used in the manufacture of Injectors is not marketable in its captively consumed form.
4. Nozzles and Nozzle Holders are entitled to exemption under Notifications 217/85-C.E. and 75/86-C.E.
The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
-
2009 (6) TMI 907
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice, Financial hardship, Separate penalty on firm and partner
Violation of principles of natural justice:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order. The appellants contended that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine some noticees and that their submissions were not properly considered. The lower authority was also accused of not considering that there was no conscious effort on the part of the appellants to misstate or suppress facts. The Tribunal analyzed the need for cross-examination, emphasizing that it is required when a statement is adverse to the applicant's interest or forms the sole basis for liability. The Tribunal found no justification for cross-examination in this case, as none of the statements were adverse or sole basis for imposing penalties. The judgment differentiated this case from previous decisions where lack of cross-examination led to interference in the orders. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the violation of natural justice was unsubstantiated in this matter.
Financial hardship:
Another issue addressed in the judgment was the claim of financial hardship by the appellants. The appellants argued that being directed to deposit the entire amount ordered would cause undue financial hardship. However, the Tribunal emphasized that mere allegations of financial hardship without disclosing relevant facts are insufficient for a waiver of the demanded amount. It was stated that the plea for financial hardship must be supported by necessary facts and evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the determination of financial hardship depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
Separate penalty on firm and partner:
The judgment also discussed the question of whether a separate penalty could be imposed on a firm, its partner, or proprietor. The appellants referenced a Bombay High Court judgment suggesting that the firm and partner cannot be independently penalized. However, the Tribunal noted that the records did not show any individual, except for specific names, who had been penalized separately. The judgment clarified that based on the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, certain individuals could not have been separately penalized. Consequently, the penalty imposed against the firm was stayed until the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal differentiated between the liability of the firm and specific individuals, granting relief to some but rejecting the applications related to others.
In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues of natural justice violation, financial hardship, and separate penalties on the firm and individuals. It provided detailed reasoning for each issue, citing relevant legal precedents and clarifying the application of principles in the specific case. The Tribunal's decision was based on a meticulous examination of the facts and legal considerations surrounding each issue raised by the appellants.
-
2009 (6) TMI 906
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI issued a judgement in 2009 regarding an appeal filed against the payment of interest and penalty. The appellant had taken Cenvat Credit on waste cloth during a specific period and later reversed the credit after a show cause notice was issued. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of interest and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that since they had not utilized the credit, the payment of interest was not justified. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and concluded that interest is not leviable when wrongly taken credit has not been utilized. As a result, the demand of interest and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 5-6-2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 905
Issues involved: Appeal against reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the penalty was reduced. The case involved the detection of shortage of finished goods involving central excise duty, which was accepted by the Director of the respondent and the duty was deposited. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal for enhancement of penalty equal to the duty amount.
Upon hearing both sides, it was found that the goods were removed clandestinely without payment of duty, justifying the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The argument that there was no evidence of clandestine removal was countered by the fact that the goods were cleared without duty payment. Reference was made to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court case regarding penalty imposition when duty is paid before the show cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the reduction of penalty to 25% of the duty amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the 1st Proviso to Section 11AC.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as the penalty reduction was justified based on the circumstances of the case.
-
2009 (6) TMI 904
Issues involved: Determination of eligibility for exemption u/s Notification No. 7/2003-C.E. and consideration of export for exemption from excise duty.
Eligibility for exemption u/s Notification No. 7/2003-C.E.: The Commissioner concluded that unprocessed Hand Woven Fabrics are not non-excisable as per Tariff Heading 5207 and 5208 or Chapter Notes under Chapter 52. The exemption under Sl. No. 29 of Notification No. 7/2003-C.E. would not apply to goods that do not conform to specified specifications.
Consideration of export for exemption: The appellant claimed that the goods subject to duty were supplied to various entities for export, including M/s. Hindustan Textiles, M/s. Zanav Home Collections, and M/s. Shyam Ahuja. The appellant argued that the lack of corroborative evidence of export should not preclude exemption, as exports were facilitated through recognized export houses. The appellant provided statements and certificates from M/s. Hindustan Textiles and M/s. Zanav Home Collection to support their export claims. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to grant exemption based on the evidence of export provided by the appellant, with duty applicable only to quantities not covered by such evidence. The revenue was tasked with demonstrating the inaccuracy of the appellant's evidence within four months.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the finding that unprocessed handloom fabrics were liable to excise duty in the absence of relevant exemption notification. However, the Tribunal directed the Original Authority to grant exemption based on evidence of export provided by the appellant, with duty payable only on quantities not supported by such evidence. The appeal was disposed of with the matter remanded to the Original Authority for further action within a specified timeframe.
-
2009 (6) TMI 903
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of the amendment to section 40A(3) introduced by the Finance Act, 2008.
3. Validity of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 on a single day to one party.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The core issue is the disallowance of Rs. 25.91 lakhs under section 40A(3) of the Act, which pertains to cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 on a single day to one party. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the assessee-firm split cash payments to circumvent section 40A(3). The AO relied on the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT v. Dalip Chand and Sons [2008] 301 ITR 276, dismissing the assessee's reliance on other case laws. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's view, emphasizing that the payments were split to avoid the section's rigour.
The assessee-firm argued that the payments were made under exceptional circumstances, such as the perishable nature of rice bran and the necessity for immediate cash transactions in rural areas. The firm cited several case laws, including CIT v. Aloo Supply Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680 (Orissa), which supported the view that multiple payments below Rs. 20,000 in a single day do not attract section 40A(3).
2. Applicability of the amendment to section 40A(3) introduced by the Finance Act, 2008:
The amendment to section 40A(3) by the Finance Act, 2008, effective from April 1, 2009, was debated. The AO and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) interpreted the amendment as clarifying the legislative intent, even for periods before its enactment. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the amendment is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal emphasized that if the legislature intended retrospective application, the effective date would not have been specified.
3. Validity of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 on a single day to one party:
The Tribunal analyzed various case laws to determine the validity of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. It considered cases like CIT v. K. K. S. K. Leather Processor P. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 669 and CIT v. Chrome Leather Co. P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 708, which acknowledged that cash payments under exceptional circumstances do not attract disallowance under section 40A(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee-firm's payments were made in remote areas with limited banking facilities and that the identity and genuineness of the payees were established.
The Tribunal concluded that the AO's sweeping allegation of intentional splitting of payments lacked documentary evidence. It reiterated that disallowance under section 40A(3) should not be made without proper application of mind and credible evidence. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Triveniprasad Pannalal [1997] 228 ITR 680, which held that multiple payments below Rs. 20,000 in a single day do not attract section 40A(3).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee-firm's appeal, concluding that the disallowance under section 40A(3) was unjustified. It emphasized that the amendment to section 40A(3) is prospective, and the assessee-firm's cash payments were made under exceptional circumstances, with the identity and genuineness of the payees established. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of relevant case laws and the specific facts of the case.
-
2009 (6) TMI 902
Issues involved:
The issue in this case is whether the dividend or discount paid to the subscribers of the chit would constitute interest and whether the assessees are liable to deduct tax under section 194A of the Act on such payments.
Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vishakhapatnam heard four appeals filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Visakhapatnam, for the financial year 2005-06. The appeals raised a single issue regarding the nature of dividend or discount paid to chit subscribers and the applicability of tax deduction under section 194A of the Act. The Tribunal decided to dispose of all four appeals by a common order due to the identical nature of the issue.
The Revenue contended that the dividend payments to chit subscribers should be treated as interest, attracting tax deduction under section 194A of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that such dividends do not fall under the category of interest, thereby deleting the demand raised by the TDS officer. The Tribunal examined the operation of chit fund schemes as explained by the Supreme Court and analyzed the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, which regulate chit schemes run by the companies in question.
The Tribunal referred to previous judicial decisions, including a Supreme Court ruling and a decision by the Amritsar Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, to establish that chit fund transactions are distinct from loan transactions. It was emphasized that the dividend paid to chit members represents their share of the discount forgone by the bidder and is not akin to interest payments. The Tribunal also considered a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which clarified the treatment of surplus or deficit in chit fund schemes.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the dividend payments to chit subscribers should not be treated as interest payments made by the chit companies, based on the provisions of the Chit Funds Act and relevant judicial precedents.
The judgment was pronounced in open court on July 20, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 901
Issues Involved:
1. Non-allowance of set off of indexed long-term capital loss against long-term capital gains without indexation.
2. Computation of long-term capital gains with and without indexation.
3. Interpretation of Section 70(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Application of Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Non-allowance of Set Off of Indexed Long-term Capital Loss Against Long-term Capital Gains Without Indexation:
The primary issue in this appeal is the non-allowance of set off of indexed long-term capital loss (LTCL) against long-term capital gains (LTCG) without indexation. The assessee claimed a set off of indexed LTCL of Rs. 33,09,082 against LTCG without indexation of Rs. 76,82,965. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, citing that Section 70(3) of the Income-tax Act does not allow such set off due to differing computation methods. The AO further argued that different tax slabs for gains with and without indexation (20% with indexation and 10% without indexation) prevent such set off. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed the set off, directing the AO to recalculate gains and losses without indexation. However, the assessee remained aggrieved by this partial relief.
2. Computation of Long-term Capital Gains With and Without Indexation:
During the assessment, the assessee provided a revised computation of long-term capital gains and losses without indexation. The original working showed an indexed LTCL of Rs. 33,09,082 and LTCG without indexation of Rs. 76,82,965, resulting in net gains of Rs. 43,73,883. The revised working showed an indexed LTCL of Rs. 26,07,112 and the same LTCG without indexation, resulting in net gains of Rs. 50,75,853. The AO rejected the revised working, insisting that the assessee must compute LTCG with indexation unless the tax payable with indexation exceeds the tax payable without indexation. Consequently, the AO taxed the LTCG without indexation and allowed the indexed LTCL to be carried forward.
3. Interpretation of Section 70(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 70(3) states that a loss from the transfer of a long-term capital asset shall be set off against income from the transfer of another long-term capital asset under a similar computation. The AO interpreted "similar computation" to mean that losses with indexation cannot be set off against gains without indexation. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 70(3) allows set off of losses from one source against gains from another source under the same head of income, i.e., capital gains. The Tribunal held that the set off of indexed LTCL against LTCG without indexation is permissible under Section 70(3).
4. Application of Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 112 provides for the tax on long-term capital gains, offering two methods of computation: with indexation (taxed at 20%) and without indexation (taxed at 10%). The proviso to Section 112 allows the assessee to choose the method that results in lower tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized that the computation of LTCG with or without indexation is for determining the tax payable. The option to choose the method of computation does not affect the set off of losses under Section 70(3). The Tribunal directed the AO to set off the indexed LTCL against the LTCG without indexation and compute the tax as per the proviso to Section 112.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to set off the indexed long-term capital loss against the long-term capital gains without indexation and compute the tax liability according to the provisions of Section 112. The order was pronounced on June 3, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 900
Issues involved: Appeal against allowing loss on account of change in method of accounting for assessment year 2005-06.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue was against the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for allowing loss on account of a change in the method of accounting. The assessee had changed the method of valuation of closing stock from "cost" to "at cost or market price whichever is lower," resulting in a lower profit being shown. The Assessing Officer disallowed this change, leading to an addition of Rs. 94.06 lakhs. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, stating that the new method was properly followed and in line with legal principles.
Upon hearing the submissions and reviewing the material, it was noted that the change in the method of valuation of closing stock was bona fide and in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court had previously approved such a method of valuation. The Tribunal observed that as long as the change is genuine and consistently followed, there should be no objection. The Tribunal also highlighted previous judgments supporting such changes in valuation methods, emphasizing the importance of consistency.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition, as there was no evidence to refute that the new method was consistently applied. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal.
The order was pronounced on June 10, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 899
100% EOU - DTA Clearance of Shrimp feed - concessional effective rate in terms of N/N. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95 - denial of benefit of Notification on the ground that the DTA clearances made by it during the material period were in excess of 50% of the FOB value of the physical exports - Held that:- Under Notification 2/95-C.E. ibid an EOU was liable to pay on DTA clearances only 50% of the duty of excise equivalent to the duty of customs leviable on like goods (if imported in India) u/s 12 of the Customs Act read with relevant exemption Notification.
In the instant case, the Secretariat of Industrial Assistance, Ministry of Industry, specifically permitted the appellant EOU to sell the entire production of shrimp feed within the country and the unit was not allowed to export the same. The Development Commissioner considered the DTA sales for the purpose of discharging export obligation without the EOU making physical exports - the EOU cannot be denied the benefit of Not. No. 2/95-C.E. as the appellant was allowed to sell the entire production of shrimp feed within the country, as the DGFT authorities have considered the DTA clearances as export clearances and issued EODC to appellant. A legitimate benefit extended under a Notification cannot be denied to the EOU for no fault of theirs.
The sale of shrimp feed by the EOU in DTA should be treated as deemed exports and the impugned clearances entitled to the benefit of the N/N. 2/95-C.E. allowed to it. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (6) TMI 898
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lower authorities acted judiciously in disposing of the submissions of the assessee.
2. Whether the levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Judicious Disposal by Lower Authorities:
The assessee contended that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) failed to act judiciously and acted arbitrarily and prejudicially. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the lower authorities had conducted a detailed examination of the facts and evidence. The Tribunal noted that during the search and seizure operation on February 2, 2001, at the assessee's residence and business premises, unexplained cash and investments were found. The AO and CIT(A) had considered various statements and documents, including the assessee's statements at the IGI airport and during the search under section 132. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had acted judiciously and there was no arbitrary or prejudicial action.
2. Justification of Penalty Levy under Section 158BFA(2):
The Tribunal analyzed whether the penalty under section 158BFA(2) was justified. The key points considered were:
- Ownership of Cash: The assessee was found with Rs. 18,07,500 in cash at the IGI airport, which he initially claimed was for purchasing diamonds for his proprietary concern, M/s. Sona Jewellers. However, the cash was not accounted for in the books of M/s. Sona Jewellers. The second page of the assessee's statement, which was unsigned, indicated that the cash was unaccounted and belonged to his proprietary concern.
- Statements and Evidence: The Tribunal reviewed the statements of the assessee and other individuals involved. The assessee's explanations were inconsistent, particularly regarding the ownership of the cash. The Tribunal noted that at the airport, the assessee did not mention that the cash belonged to Hira Jewellers P. Ltd., and the alleged letter from the company was not produced at that time. The statements of other employees corroborated that bills were written without actual sales.
- Quantum Proceedings: The Tribunal referred to the quantum proceedings where the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash was rejected. The lower authorities had found that the cash was not accounted for and the explanation provided by the assessee was not bona fide.
- Legal Precedents: The Tribunal considered various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT, and Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors. The Tribunal noted that the penalty under section 158BFA(2) is not automatic and must be based on the circumstances and explanations provided by the assessee. However, in this case, the explanation was not found to be bona fide.
- Discretion and Application of Mind: The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities have discretion in levying penalties and must apply their mind to the facts of the case. In this case, the lower authorities had applied their mind and found that the penalty was warranted due to the lack of a bona fide explanation for the unaccounted cash.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had acted judiciously and the levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on June 5, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 897
Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of prior-period expenditure of Rs. 1,76,20,000.
2. Allowance of man-hour cost of Rs. 1,58,73,976.
3. Allowance of proposal cost of Rs. 78,88,526.
Summary:
1. Allowance of Prior-Period Expenditure of Rs. 1,76,20,000:
The first issue pertains to the allowance of Rs. 1,76,20,000 as prior-period expenditure. The assessee-company, incorporated in the Netherlands, incurred this expenditure before setting up its project office in India. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the expenditure, noting that it was incurred for the purpose of executing the Indian project between April 1, 1998, and June 16, 1998, after the contract was awarded but before the Reserve Bank of India granted approval for setting up the project office. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the expenditure was for the same year and not prior-period expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure was identifiable with the project and should be allowed as a deduction from the total project value for computing income, aligning with the matching concept.
2. Allowance of Man-Hour Cost of Rs. 1,58,73,976:
The second issue concerns the allowance of man-hour cost amounting to Rs. 1,58,73,976. The Departmental representative conceded that a similar issue was raised in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2000-01, where the Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the deduction. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order on this issue and dismissed the ground.
3. Allowance of Proposal Cost of Rs. 78,88,526:
The third issue involves the allowance of proposal cost of Rs. 78,88,526. The assessee claimed this expenditure under "Opening work-in-progress," incurred during the financial year 1997-98 for bidding and actual execution of the contract. The Assessing Officer disallowed it, considering it prior-period expenditure and noting that no return of income was filed for the assessment year 1998-99. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, observing that the assessee followed the percentage completion method as per Accounting Standard 7. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the opening work-in-progress must be considered in computing the income from the project. The Tribunal also noted that the non-filing of the return for the preceding year was not a valid reason for disallowance, as the assessee had no income chargeable to tax in that year and was not claiming any carry forward of loss.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decisions on all three issues. The order was pronounced on June 16, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 896
Issues involved: Stay petition against waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, in the case, addressed a stay petition concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the absence of representation from the applicant, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter due to its narrow scope.
The Tribunal considered the confirmed Service tax liability against the applicant, based on the allegation that the applicant did not discharge the tax on the commission received. It was also noted that the applicant did not report the differential commission in the ST-3 returns, which was discovered during the investigation by Revenue officers. The applicant contended that the liability was for reimbursement expenses paid towards postage, communication, freight, etc. The Tribunal acknowledged that a detailed examination of this issue would be necessary at the final disposal of the appeal. Out of the total Service tax liability of Rs. 98,801/-, the applicant had already paid Rs. 51,431/- along with an interest amount of Rs. 16,979/-. Considering that more than 50% of the tax liability had been deposited, the Tribunal deemed this amount sufficient for hearing and disposing of the appeal.
Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the remaining balance amounts and stayed the recovery until the appeal's final disposal.
-
2009 (6) TMI 895
Issues:
- Stay application against waiver of pre-deposit for service tax, interest, and penalties.
- Eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 19/2003.
- Demand of duty on services rendered before 10-9-2004.
- Limitation on the issue.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved a stay application against the waiver of pre-deposit for service tax, interest, and penalties. The case revolved around the eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 19/2003, the demand of duty on services rendered before 10-9-2004, and the limitation on the issue. The appellant argued that the services of "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" were wrongly confirmed as taxable for the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2006. The appellant contended that prior to 10-9-2004, erection charges were not taxable, and post that date, they had paid the service tax liability on relevant contracts. The appellant also challenged the disallowance of abatement and the demand for services rendered before 10-9-2004.
Regarding the eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 19/2003, the Tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for abatement as they had not availed any input stage credit on inputs or capital goods. It was noted that the appellant had only taken credit on input stage services, which was not barred by the said Notification. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the demands were not sustainable on this point. However, concerning the demand of duty on services rendered before 10-9-2004, the Tribunal determined that a detailed review was necessary based on the contracts and legal submissions. Similarly, on the issue of limitation, the Tribunal concluded that a detailed examination was required during the final hearing.
Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for waiver of dues related to services rendered before 10-9-2004, thus imposing a pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 3,00,000. The appellant was directed to comply with this pre-deposit within 8 weeks, with a compliance report due by 20th August 2009. Upon such compliance, the balance amount was waived, and recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2009 (6) TMI 894
The judgement by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Shri P.K. Das, J., involved an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, claimed that they failed to deposit taxes for the period April 2000 to November 2006 due to ignorance of the law, but subsequently paid the tax with interest in January 2007. The original authority imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78, which were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for the penalty under Section 78. The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 78 was imposable due to non-payment of tax detected during investigation. While the Tribunal did not accept the ignorance of law as a valid reason for non-payment, it directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within 6 weeks. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining penalty amount would be waived, and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. The compliance was to be reported by 18th August 2009, and the Registry was instructed to link this appeal with the Revenue's appeal No. ST/193/09.
-
2009 (6) TMI 893
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand based on availing Cenvat credit on service tax paid by head office.
2. Interpretation of Board's Circular No. 97/7/2007-S.T. regarding Input Service Distributor.
3. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of the demanded amount.
Confirmation of Demand:
The judgment addressed the confirmation of demand arising from the appellant availing Cenvat credit on service tax paid by their head office, registered as an "Input Service Distributor." The services included various expenses like advertisement, telephone, security services, insurance, and others meant for products manufactured by units at different locations. The Adjudicating Authority dropped proceedings, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed it, confirming the demand and imposing penalties.
Interpretation of Circular:
The appellant relied on Board's Circular No. 97/7/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007, specifically pointing to Para 2.3, which discusses the role of an "input service distributor" in distributing service tax credits. The circular outlines conditions for credit distribution, emphasizing that the credit should not exceed the tax paid and should not be distributed for services used in units exclusively dealing with exempted goods or services. The tribunal found that the conditions mentioned in the circular did not apply to the appellant's case, supporting a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit.
Application for Waiver:
After considering the issue and the circular's provisions, the tribunal allowed the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the demanded amount. The tribunal stayed the recovery of the amount until the appeal was disposed of, highlighting that the appellant had made a prima facie case for the waiver based on the interpretation of the circular and the specific conditions outlined therein.
This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the confirmation of demand, the interpretation of the Board's Circular, and the application for the waiver of pre-deposit, providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE.
-
2009 (6) TMI 892
The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty. They argued they were registered as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) and had already paid a significant amount of Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the applicants had paid a substantial sum as GTA service provider. The issue was whether they provided Cargo Handling Services or GTA Services. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit for the remaining amount of Service Tax and penalty, allowing the appeal to proceed with a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency.
............
|
9911796707
