Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1594 Records
-
2022 (9) TMI 1475 - ITAT RAJKOT
Disallowance of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation which is beyond eight Assessment Years - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered by Jurisdictional High Court which has considered the amendments made in the Finance Act, 2001 and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2002, which clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from AY 1997-98 to 2001- 02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof. Thus the assessee is eligible to carry forward and the set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever.
Recording the above submission of the D.R. and CIT(A) who has followed the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1474 - SC ORDER
Review petition - it was mentioned and submitted that this Court had overlooked the judgment of this Court in ES KRISHNAMURTHY & ORS. VERSUS M/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [2021 (12) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT], to which the attention of this Court had not been drawn - Revenue submits that certain observations made by us in the judgment and order under review could be interpreted in a manner that might be contrary to the aims and objects of the IBC and render the law infructuous.
HELD THAT:- It is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case.
To interpret words and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for the Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions. The words of Judges interpreting statutes a re not to be interpreted as statutes.
There are no grounds for review of the judgment and order. The Review Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1473 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of rendering of Software Development Services (SWD services) by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Rejection of comparables as functionally dissimilar with that of assessee. Infosys Ltd., Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. , Persistent Systems Ltd. and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. need to be deselected accordingly.
Akshay Software Technologies ltd. and Maverie Systems Ltd. ("Maverie") - As relying on decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of EMC Software and Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2019 (12) TMI 1279 - ITAT BANGALORE] the comparability of this company should be remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
12T2 India Limited - This issue with regard to the comparability of this company has to be remanded to TPO/AO for fresh consideration as the submissions made above were neither considered by the TPO nor by the DRP. We hold and direct accordingly.
Adding Notional interest on outstanding receivables - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the transaction with Non-AE is non-realization of receivables beyond the credit period and not charging interest on such delayed receivables becomes a comparable uncontrolled transaction.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MC. Kinley Knowledge Centre (I) Pvt. Ltd.[2021 (10) TMI 751 - DELHI HIGH COURT] took the view that wherever payments are received in advance that cannot be ignored. By the same analogy, the outstanding payable that was paid beyond the due date should also be considered when determining ALP of extended / delayed realization of outstanding receivable.
Without going into the question whether the delay in realization of outstanding receivables would be an international transaction or not, on which there are conflicting decisions prior to amendment of section 92B of the Act, we are of the view that the calculation of ALP has to be remanded to the AO/TPO to compute ALP, after considering (i) outstanding payable to AE which was paid belated by the assessee and (ii) delay in realization of outstanding receivables beyond the credit period as transactions with Non-AE. We hold and direct accordingly.
Depreciation on computer servers, software and networking equipment - @ 15% by considering it as "plant and machinery" OR "computers" at 60% - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue raised herein is no longer res-integra and has been decided in the case of Mphasis Ltd.[2021 (3) TMI 1072 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held that computer accessories such as switches and routers form part of peripherals of computer system and hence entitled to depreciation at 60%. Ground raised by the assessee.
Short credit of TDS - as submitted that the AO erred in not granting appropriate credit of tax deducted at sourc-HELD THAT:- AO will verify the claim of the assessee and allow relief, if found correct.
Non-grant of advance tax credit - as submitted that the AO erred in not granting the advance tax credit amounting paid by Teleca Software Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. which was merged with the assessee w.e.f. 01 April 2013 - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that a direction to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow relief if found correct, would be sufficient. We hold and direct accordingly.
Non-grant of MAT credit - as submitted that the AO erred in not granting relief of MAT credit to the extent of difference between assessed tax computed under normal provisions of the Act and MAT computed even after having sufficient MAT credit - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow relief in accordance with law.
Charging of Interest u/s 234A - as submitted that the AO erred in levying interest without considering that the assessee has filed return of income within the due date prescribed u/s 139 - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that a direction to the A0 to verify the claim of the assessee and allow relief as per law, would be sufficient. We direct accordingly.
Assessee appeal is partly allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1472 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- The appeal was admitted for the purpose of scrutinising the effect of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. [2014 (11) TMI 1101 - SC ORDER], which had granted an order of stay and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
Identical matters came up before this Court on earlier occasion and the Court upon perusal of the material papers found the tax effect in these cases were less than the threshold limit fixed in the Circular issued by the Central Board for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were disposed of by observing that the tax effect is less than the threshold limit.
However, the legal issue as regards validity of the Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was struck down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. and which judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had been left over - In the instant case from the order-in-original dated January 5, 2016, the demand of Central Excise duty was Rs. 1,57,553/-. If that be so, the Revenue cannot pursue this appeal on the ground of low tax effect subject of course with regard to the legal issue regarding the validity of Rule 8(3A) of 2002 Rules.
The finding rendered by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Rule is set aside - the appeal filed by the Revenue has been disposed of on the ground of low tax effect and consequently no recovery can be effected from the respondent/assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1471 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rejection of application for restoration of registration - reason for rejection of application was on the ground that it has been filed beyond the stipulated period under statute - HELD THAT:- The order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation dated 03.03.2021 is a single line order thereby stating that the assessee has not replied to the show cause notice dated 13.01.2021. However, the fact remains that before the said notice dated 09.12.2020, the assessee had filed GSTR-3B returns upto November 2019 and this was filed prior to the application for revocation of cancellation which was filed on 16.12.2020.
In the considered view of this Court, the Assessing Authority, being the Assistant Commissioner, Asansol should take into consideration this fact and examine as to whether the registration of the appellant could be restored or not. Since the Appellate Authority has solely proceeded on the ground of limitation without touching the above mentioned facts, the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for fresh consideration.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1470 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking recall of Order - victims have compromised their claims with the accused - locus standi of the appellants - effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the four accused on the other hand - non-inclusion in the chargesheet of the offences under the P.C. Act.
Locus standi - HELD THAT:- Even according to the Investigating Officer, persons who claim to have paid money, but did not receive orders of appointment, were not the only victims. Persons who were more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of being edged out by candidates who paid money and got selected, are also victims of the alleged corrupt practices, if those allegations are eventually proved. Shri P. Dharamaraj, who is the appellant in one of these appeals, claims to be a candidate who participated in the selection, but could not make it - Even the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents could not contest the position that a victim is entitled to file an appeal against the impugned order of the High Court. If persons who participated in the selection process but who could not make it to the final list of selected candidates on account of the alleged corrupt practices adopted by those in power are not victims, we do not know who else could be a victim.
We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees. Hence, to say that the appellants have no locus standi, is to deny the existence of what is obvious.
Effect of the compromise and the noninclusion of the offences under the P.C. Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others - As seen from the final report filed in this case and the counter affidavit filed by the I.O., persons who have adopted corrupt practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation fall under two categories namely, (i) those who paid money and got orders of appointment; and (ii) those who paid money but failed to secure employment. If persons belonging to the 2nd category are allowed to settle their dispute by taking refund of money, the same would affix a seal of approval on the appointment of persons belonging to the 1st category. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise.
It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. Therefore we hold that the High Court was completely in error in quashing the criminal complaint.
Non-inclusion in the final report, of the offences under the P.C. Act - HELD THAT:- We have provided a gist of the contents of such counter affidavit elsewhere in this judgment. We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” - As a matter of fact, the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute.
The appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The criminal complaint is restored to file.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1469 - ITAT MUMBAI
Delayed employer and employee contribution to PF - assessment u/s 143(1) - contribution paid after due date prescribed under relevant Provident Fund Ac but before due date of filing of return of income - HELD THAT:- We find that issue-in-dispute is covered in favour of the assessee as relying on case of DCIT v. M/s Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd[2021 (7) TMI 1389 - ITAT MUMBAI] disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments as the legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions, are prospective in application with effect from 01.04.2021.
No disallowance for delayed payment of PF could be made in the case of the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act being debatable issue. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1468 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - absence of any exempt income - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. On such facts, the dispute is well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil Industry Development Board [2019 (3) TMI 1571 - SC ORDER] by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the revenue against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [2018 (2) TMI 1861 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in which case the Tribunal had held that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of any amount was not permissible. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the order passed by the Tribunal [2019 (6) TMI 666 - ITAT DELHI] and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP preferred by the Revenue.
Also in the case of Caraf Builders & Constructions [P] Ltd [2018 (12) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that when no taxable income is earned, corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance.
Similar view was taken in the case of Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Respectfully following the judicial decisions cited hereinabove, we decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1467 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking appointment of an arbitrator - adjudication upon the disputes related to the sale, implementation and installation by the petitioner of certain hardware and multi-media system accessories along with software for the purpose of setting-up 24 Smart Learn Classes at several schools run by the respondents - time limitation.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner's claim against the respondents as raised in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021 is only one: viz. for payment of arrears of licence fee/other dues amounting to Rs. 29,28,100/-, which is founded upon the termination of the contract by the petitioner vide notice dated 04.01.2017. To be sure, the petitioner's invocation notice does not contain any reference to any claim for recovery of hardware, supposedly lying with the respondents upto the year 2019 - Regardless of any correspondence exchanged between the parties thereafter, it is clear that the petitioner's cause of action first arose when the respondents failed to pay the monies due under the contract in addition to damages, as claimed by the petitioner vide its notice dated 04.01.2017.
The claim in money is the only claim that was raised in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021; and the argument that the petitioner was also entitled to get back the hardware and other equipments lying with the respondents, is to be considered only to be rejected, since reply dated 31.08.2021 issued by the respondents records that such hardware was picked-up by the petitioner, which the petitioner does not dispute. Even more importantly, the law is clear that an invocation notice must set-out clearly the claims that a party wants referred to arbitration; and in the present case, no claim for recovery of hardware was at all contained in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021.
The period of limitation applicable to the petitioner's claim is as follows: having terminated the contract with the respondents vide notice dated 04.01.2017, and the respondents having failed to pay the amounts claimed to be due, the petitioner ought to have issued the notice invoking arbitration within 03 years of that date, viz. by or before 03.01.2020. However, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration only on 28.07.2021, which was evidently beyond the limitation prescribed in law.
The limitation bars a legal remedy and not a legal right, the legal policy being to ensure that legal remedies are not available endlessly but only up-to a certain point in time. Needless to add however, that if the respondents are conceding the petitioner's claim itself, and are ready and willing to pay-up, such payment would not be illegal and there could not be any legal impediment in doing so. A party may concede a claim at any time; but cannot concede availability of a legal remedy beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
This court is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim against the respondent is ex-facie time barred and is accordingly 'deadwood'; and does not require to be referred to arbitration - Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1466 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - suo moto addition made by assessee - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- DR could not substantiate argument as to why inspite of a suo moto disallowance being made by the Assessee without justifying anything to differ, the AO made a disallowance while the interest expenditure was incurred to earn taxable income only.
At the same time the Assessee’s own fund as on 31.03.2015 were Rs. 145173.31 and investment of Rs. 1957.39 lacs. No intervention required in the findings of the ld CIT(A) which based on correct interpretation and reliance of law. The ground is No. 1 decided against the revenue.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- DR could not submit anything to show that how there is any difference of facts or law in regard to the issue when the same has been decided in Assessee’s own case by the order of Tribunal in preceding years. AO made addition relying on the orders for preceding years and the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition relying on the decision of the tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10. Thus, there is no substance in the ground. The same is decided against the revenue.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1465 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Vacation of interim order - Appellant contends that the assets of the Corporate Debtor were the only property and in view of the vacation of the Interim Order, prejudice will be caused to the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The Interim Order dated 01st April, 2022 was passed on an I.A. filed by the Yes Bank being I.A. No. 779/2022 which having been dismissed by the Impugned Order, Appellant can not be said to be aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application since it was not the Applicant’s application which got dismissed. Appellant in no manner was party to the said application hence we see no reason to entertain the Appeal at the instance of the Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1464 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - letter of allotment is merely a letter of intent and not an agreement for sale of flat - difference between the consideration and the stamp duty value - HELD THAT:- The chronology of the events confirms that the finding of the A.O treating the agreement of the assessee as letter of intent is not correct. In this matter treating the said agreement as letter of intent shows an over thinking and hyper technical interpretation at the end of the A.O. assessees case clearly falls in the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
Similar property in the case of assessee’s wife with similar transactions has been accepted by the same A.O without any addition for the same A.Y. See Gulabrai Hanumanbox. vs. Commissioner of Wealth –tax [1991 (8) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] as held two different Assessees having similar/ identical facts w.r.t valuation of property cannot be assessed with different rates for the same property. Thereby, the order passed by the Assessing officer for co-sharer of property is arbitrary and unjustified in law.
We delete the addition made by A.O and confirms that assessee is entitled to the benefits of proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
-
2022 (9) TMI 1463 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- KPL International Limited - There need not be any confusion between the dissimilarity of functions and dissimilarity of products. Function of both the assessee and the KPL is similar, namely, distribution of products. Even to the extent of 97.5% such products are also similar. Then, unless and until it is established by the assessee that a grave prejudice would be caused by comparing this company with the assessee or that the 2.5% revenue derived by KPL by the sale of other products, it is not fair for the assessee to seek the view taken in Intoto Software (supra), to be extended to the case of the assessee and KPL where both the companies are broadly in the sale of similar products and the additional product only secures 2.5% of the revenue. According to us, the view taken in Intoto Software (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. We accordingly uphold the findings of AO/ TPO and learned DRP in this regard and confirm the KPL as a comparable with the assessee.
Hitech Specialities Solutions Limited is deriving income not only from the sale of traded/finished goods but also derives about 10% of revenue from the services like management fee and commission. The segmental information of the annual report reads that the entire revenue is from only one segment, without any detailed figures as to the profitability of the sale of product and sale of service. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is unsafe to consider this entity as a comparable to the assessee. We, therefore, direct the AO/TPO to exclude this entity from the final list of comparables.
Hindage Oilfield Services Limited - Both the entities [Assessee and Hindage] are engaged in the sale of traded products. There is slight variation in the description of the products. TNMM will take care of the variations. For this reason, we decline to interfere with the findings of both the authorities in respect of inclusion of Hindage Oilfield Services Limited as a comparable.
Adjustment towards Interest on receivable - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by accepting the interest rate on similar foreign currency receivables/advances as LIBOR+200 points. We direct the learned Assessing Officer / learned TPO to adopt the same
-
2022 (9) TMI 1462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to withdraw the petition - endorsement in the petition to that effect also made - HELD THAT:- Permission is granted and this Writ Petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1461 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe that income had escaped tax - fictitious loan obtained - whether the notice issued u/s 148 deserves to be quashed or set aside for any reason whatsoever? - HELD THAT:- Search was conducted in the case of M/s Dishman group of Ahmedabad and it was found that said group had indulged in huge transactions of bogus loans and advances and the ADIT's note concluded that loans and advances are received by the assessee, present writ applicant from the said M/s Dishman company as such it implies the assessee had given equal cash to M/s Dishman and was of the view that such transactions are to be construed from the angle of applicability of Section 69A apart from being treated as unexplained credits, wherever applicable.
It is this fact which persuaded the AO to issue the notice stating thereunder that accommodation entry in the form of fictitious loan was reflected from M/s Dishman Pharmaceuticals to the assessee.
The assessee not only in its objections statement filed to the reopening of the assessment has stated that there was no such transaction and even the books of accounts which formed part and parcel of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) did not disclose any such loan transaction for the assessment year 2013 - 2014 insofar as the assessee is concerned.
In the absence of any foundational facts, the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment on the premises that AO had reason to believe that income had escaped to assessment and thereby there is tax evasion has to be necessarily held as a myth and it cannot be countenanced and without any foundation. Thus, without due application of mind, the AO could not have issued the impugned notice. On this short ground itself, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
There is no foundation in the notice which formed the basis on which the AO proposed to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2013 - 2014. Hence, point formulated hereinabove deserves to be answered in favour of the petitioner - assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1460 - ITAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 271D - contravention of Sec. 269SS - loan is received from the Executive Directors to the Company, who are controlling the financial affairs of the Company - Was there there was reasonable cause u/s 273B? - HELD THAT:- As in this present case, the transaction between assessee company and its Executive Directors is on account to meet the urgent financial requirements of the company. Accordingly, it cannot be considered and there exist reasonable causes for accepting the money in cash from the Executive Directors of the company who are responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company. In our opinion, in this case, levy of penalty u/s 271D of the is unwarranted. Accordingly, we inclined to delete the penalty levied by the AO confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1459 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Recovery of the differential duty - clearance of intermediate goods to their own units under the provisions of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise, Act, 1944 - demand of interest and penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellants have appropriately taken cost figures of the previous month's CAS-4 certificates as a basis to arrive at the cost of production of each month. There was no objection whatsoever by the department at any point of time. For the first time in February 2008, during the course of audit for the period April 2006 to March 2007, this practice was objected and the Appellants were asked to redetermine cost of production on the basis of final annual CAS-4 of April 2006 to March 2007.
If the Appellants are to value their clearance on the basis of annual CAS-4 figures, they have paid excess duty in some instances as is admitted in the show cause notice, order in original and the impugned order. Further the both the authorities have concluded in the order against adjustment of the excess payment of duty against short payment on the ground of unjust enrichment. Both authorities also hold that the assessments were provisional.
Appellants have while filing the ER-1 return disclosed all the facts and have also submitted the CAS-4 certificate also. The department was aware of the valuation practices adopted by the Appellants. All the material facts relating to the manufacture, clearance and valuation of the cables used in the captive consumption were always within the knowledge of the department. The ER-1 returns also show that there was interplant transfer - appellants have not violated any provisions of the Central Excise Act or the rules made thereunder. Thus even if there was any short payment of duty the same was on the basis of the CAS-4 certificate issue by the independent Cost Accountant, was due to bonafide belief of the Appellants regarding determination of assessable value, cannot be on account of suppression, fraud misstatement or contravention of the rule with the intention to evade payment of duty leading to invocation of extended period of limitation as per the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act,1944.
Demand do not sustain - demand for interest and penalties imposed cannot be upheld - appeal allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1458 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rejection of fourth bail application - Out of 12 witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined till date - offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) read with Section 132(1)(i) and Sub-Section (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the matter is at pre charge evidence and out of 12 witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined in pre charge evidence. It is true that after rejection of the fourth bail application wherein also the direction was given to the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the case, the Trial Court has recorded the statement of the witnesses and six witnesses have been examined in the last four months.
The Apex Court in Lalit Goyal vs. Union of India & Anr. [2022 (8) TMI 1319 - SC ORDER], which was a matter where the allegations against the accused was with regard of claim of input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 18.91 crores and accused had remained in custody for a period of one year and six months, directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months - In the present case, the allegation pertains to an amount of about Rs. 47 crores and the custody period is one year and eight months, it is therefore not deemed proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
Bail application dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Levy of Service tax - charges collected by the respondent towards penalty/late delivery charges - section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994 the Finance Act - Central Government Public Sector Undertaking - HELD THAT:- This issue as to whether the amount collected towards liquidated charges can be subjected to service tax under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act has been decided by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR [2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] which was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE BHOPAL [2021 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that it is not possible to sustain the order passed by the Principal Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax on the amount collected towards liquidated damages and theft of electricity.
It, therefore, follows that the liquidated damages collected by the respondent as penalty/late delivery charges cannot be subjected to service tax under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1456 - SUPREME COURT
MODVAT Credit - parts, components and accessories of Diesel Generating Power Plant [DGPP] sets - HELD THAT:- On appreciation of evidence and considering the material on record, the High Court has specifically observed and found that DGPP sets on which Modvat credit is allowed is part and parcel of the factory of the respondent which is ultimately used in the manufacture of end product – cement. Therefore, Sl. No.5 of the Table appended to Rule 57Q shall be attracted and therefore the assessee shall be entitled to the Modvat credit on such DGPP sets being parts/components of the cement plant/final manufacture product.
Appeal dismissed.
............
|