|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 514 Records
-
2005 (11) TMI 404
Issues:
1. Demand for duty waiver by Airport Authority of India
2. Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed
3. Validity of second Show Cause Notice (SCN) for duty demand
4. Contention regarding unavailability of 65 consignments
5. Basis of duty demand on seized consignments
Analysis:
1. The application was filed by the Airport Authority of India seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 17.7414 crores. The demand arose due to the inability of the Airport Authority of India to produce 65 consignments imported into India. The initial interception by Customs officers revealed discrepancies in the description of goods, leading to absolute confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties on the Airport Authority of India.
2. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the Airport Authority of India after it was discovered that similar 65 consignments had been imported earlier from the same supplier. These goods were not found in the Airport Authority of India's warehouse, prompting a separate Show Cause Notice for duty demand as the Airport Authority of India was appointed as the custodian under the Customs Act.
3. The applicant contended that since an earlier Show Cause Notice was issued for penalty imposition on the same consignment, the second SCN for duty demand was not sustainable on merit. The duty was quantified on a pro-rata basis considering the contents of the two seized consignments, but the applicant argued that there was no evidence to prove that the earlier consignments also contained the same goods.
4. The Airport Authority of India reported the theft of goods to the police, emphasizing the unavailability of the 65 consignments. On the other hand, the revenue authorities argued that the duty demand was justified as the earlier consignments were imported by the same exporter and some importers were common with the seized consignment. The duty was demanded based on the contents of the seized consignments, which included undeclared gold biscuits.
5. The duty demand was based on the assumption that the earlier consignments also contained similar goods as the seized consignments. The Tribunal found merit in the application, noting that the demand was primarily based on presumption and assumption. Consequently, the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount was waived for the appeal hearing, and the stay petition was allowed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 403
Issues:
Challenge of demand confirmation based on ACP determination and factory closure notification.
Analysis:
The appellants contested the demand confirmation by the Order-in-Appeal, arguing that they had indeed filed an application for surrendering the license and notifying the closure of the factory to the Superintendent. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the absence of a letter dated 26-3-98 regarding the factory closure, but the appellants claimed that the Department had acknowledged receiving the letter by affixing their seal on it. The Commissioner held that the ACP determination on 14th October, 1998, was not a statutory declaration under Rule 96ZP, as it was merely an intimation filed by the appellants on 6-5-98. The order should have been issued by April 1998 as per the rules, but it was delayed until October 1998. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in U.O.I. v. Supreme Steels and General Mills [2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)], it was established that ACP determination should be done at the beginning of the year. Therefore, the appellants' claim of closing the factory in April 1998 with due intimation to the Department was accepted, especially since the Department had acknowledged receiving the closure letter. The lower authority's finding that the Department had not received the closure intimation could not be upheld. The order passed in October 1998 for recovery of the demand was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
This judgment primarily revolves around the proper determination of ACP and the notification of factory closure. The key issue was whether the appellants' actions complied with the legal requirements and timelines for ACP determination and factory closure notification. The appellants argued that they had fulfilled the necessary steps by submitting the closure letter, which the Department had acknowledged. The Commissioner, however, found discrepancies in the timing and nature of the submissions, leading to a delay in the ACP determination. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory rules and timelines, as highlighted by the Supreme Court precedent cited.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of timely and accurate compliance with statutory requirements, particularly concerning ACP determination and factory closure notifications. The case underscores the need for strict adherence to legal procedures and deadlines to avoid disputes and ensure fair treatment in matters of demand confirmation and related issues.
-
2005 (11) TMI 402
Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund claimed by assessees.
2. Creditability of refund under PLA account.
3. Comparison with cases involving modvat/cenvat accounts.
4. Upholding of refund through PLA account.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal concerns the eligibility of the refund claimed by the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held the refund to be eligible, but the revenue contested this decision.
Issue 2: The main contention revolved around the creditability of the refund under the PLA account. The assessees were working under a compounded levy scheme and were not maintaining the RG 23C Account. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the plea for the refund amount to be paid in PLA by cash, which was challenged by the revenue.
Issue 3: The Tribunal referred to a case involving modvat/cenvat accounts, where the refund was upheld to be granted by cash. The Consultant argued that since the amount was paid under PLA, the credit should be made in the PLA account, as per the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.
Issue 4: After careful consideration, the judge found no merit in the revenue's appeal. It was noted that the assessees had paid the amount through PLA and were not maintaining the RG 23C Account due to the compounded levy scheme. The judge highlighted that in cases where modvat/cenvat accounts were maintained, the Tribunal had upheld the grant of refund by cash. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly upheld the assessees' plea for refund through the PLA account, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.
-
2005 (11) TMI 401
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed six appeals filed by the appellants regarding availment of credit under Notifications 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) & 33/94-C.E. (N.T.). The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals for not submitting triplicate copies of invoices, but since Notification No. 34 allows credit based on original dealer's invoice, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeals.
-
2005 (11) TMI 400
Issues:
1. Modification of Tribunal's Stay Order
2. Application of Clause 12G of the Finance Bill, 2005
3. Consideration of subsequent developments regarding the Finance Bill becoming an Act
4. Applicability of sub-section (5) of Section 88 in the Finance Act for determining pre-deposit under Section 35F
Analysis:
1. The applicant sought modification of the Tribunal's Stay Order, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 25.00 lakhs out of a total demand of Rs. 1,22,46,357. The Tribunal initially rejected the modification application, citing the lack of a strong prima facie case in favor of the applicant. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the modification application on its merits and pass appropriate orders.
2. The applicant filed a modification application referencing Clause 12G of the Finance Bill, 2005, proposing instalment payments for wrongly availed credit of AED prior to 1-4-2000. However, the Tribunal rejected this application, stating that the Finance Bill proposal did not impact the order passed under Section 35F.
3. Following the enactment of the Finance Bill into an Act, the applicant sought modification of the Stay Order considering the new statutory provision. The applicant argued that since other assessees could pay back wrongly availed credit in instalments, they should not be required to deposit Rs. 25.00 lakhs upfront. The Tribunal was urged to either eliminate the pre-deposit requirement or allow payment in 36 instalments.
4. The Tribunal found the applicant's contention regarding the application of sub-section (5) of Section 88 in the Finance Act for determining pre-deposit under Section 35F unacceptable. The Tribunal noted that the duty demand was confirmed earlier, and the applicant had the option to pay before the introduction of the Finance Bill, 2005, to avoid the pre-deposit requirement. As the applicant did not choose to avail of this facility earlier, the Tribunal declined to modify the Stay Order but granted an additional four weeks for compliance.
5. Failure to comply with the revised deadline would result in the dismissal of the appeal itself, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Tribunal's directives within the specified timeframe.
This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the modification of the Stay Order, the impact of the Finance Bill becoming an Act, and the Tribunal's decision regarding pre-deposit requirements under Section 35F.
-
2005 (11) TMI 399
The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2005 due to jurisdiction issue. Commissioner (Appeals) passed order without proper authority. Appeal stayed; to be heard later. (2005 (11) TMI 399 - CESTAT, BANGALORE)
-
2005 (11) TMI 398
Issues:
- Entitlement to Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods
- Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding credit in cases of inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods
- Revenue neutrality of the exercise
Entitlement to Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods:
The case involved the appellants engaged in cement manufacturing who availed Cenvat credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods. The Revenue contended that since the capital goods were exempted due to their captive use, the appellants were not entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs used in manufacturing those capital goods. A show cause notice was issued proposing denial of Modvat credit and imposition of a penalty. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants appealed against this order.
Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding credit in cases of inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods:
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant rules and notifications in detail. Prior to the introduction of new Cenvat Rules, Rule 57D(2) allowed credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods even if those goods were not chargeable to excise duty. However, it was noted that no parallel provisions were made in the new Rules until the addition of Explanation 2 to Rule 2(f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in 2003. Notifications were cited to support the inclusion of inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods for availing Modvat credit. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods were deemed eligible for Modvat credit, ultimately deciding in favor of the appellants.
Revenue neutrality of the exercise:
The Tribunal highlighted that the exercise of availing Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing capital goods was revenue neutral. The appellants had the option to pay duty on the capital goods and then avail Modvat credit on that duty for payment on the final product, making the process essentially paper-based and revenue-neutral. Considering these factors, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2005 (11) TMI 397
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai set aside a penalty of Rs. 1,33,500 imposed on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty under Rule 173GG was found not sustainable as it was not in the statute book during the period of dispute. The imposition of penalty under a law not mentioned in the show cause notice was held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the lower appellate authority. The appeal was allowed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 396
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of penalty enhancement by Commissioner (Appeals) for wrongful Cenvat credit on Capital goods.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Issue of Penalty Enhancement:
- The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the plea to enhance the penalty imposed on M/s. Delta Elastometal Co. Pvt. Ltd. for wrongly availing Cenvat credit on Capital goods. The penalty was imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 12 and Rule 26 by the lower authorities.
2. Commissioner's Reasoning for Non-Enhancement:
- The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on previous judgments, including Alchemie Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-II and Worthy Plywood Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta, stating that penalty under Section 11AC equal to the duty amount is the maximum but not mandatory. The Commissioner found the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority to be proper based on the reversal of credits and availability of capital goods.
3. Arguments During Appeal:
- The Revenue argued for the mandatory imposition of penalty equal to the duty evaded under Section 11AC, while the Respondents relied on the case law of CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. to support the setting aside of the penalty imposed by the lower authorities.
4. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
- Various case laws were cited by both parties, including Polycone Paper Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay-1 and J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, to support their positions on the appeal and penalty imposition.
5. Decision of the Tribunal:
- The Tribunal examined the case records and considered arguments from both sides. Despite the Revenue's push for penalty enhancement and the Respondents' reliance on previous judgments, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the appeal for penalty enhancement. The Tribunal referenced the sea-change effected by the Larger Bench in the Machino Montell (I) Ltd. case and found no merit in either party's arguments for or against penalty enhancement.
6. Final Decision:
- The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 14-11-2005, concluding that there were no merits in the Revenue's arguments for penalty enhancement. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue.
This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies, precedents, and arguments involved in the judgment regarding the appeal against the rejection of penalty enhancement in the case of wrongful Cenvat credit on Capital goods.
-
2005 (11) TMI 395
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 5/98.
2. Compliance with conditions for exemption.
3. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance.
4. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
5. Direction for deposit and compliance.
Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 5/98:
The issue revolved around the duty demanded and confirmed against the appellants concerning goods cleared to a specific corporation. The appellant argued eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 5/98, citing a specific condition requiring a certificate from the authorized officer at the time of clearance. They submitted a certificate post-clearance, leading to a debate on exemption eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance due to the untimely submission of the certificate.
Compliance with conditions for exemption:
The appellant's representative highlighted the submission of the certificate from the relevant corporation to the authorities but emphasized the inability to comply promptly due to the handling officer's demise. On the contrary, the Respondent contended that post-clearance submission of the certificate rendered the appellants ineligible for the benefit under the notification, advocating for pre-deposit of the penalty amount.
Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals not on merits but due to non-compliance with the condition of timely certificate submission. This dismissal prevented a detailed examination of the case's merits, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of compliance with the notification's conditions.
Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty:
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-fulfillment of a prima facie case for waiving the duty amount by the appellants. Despite the lack of a strong case for exemption, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within a set period and report compliance, allowing the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the case on its merits upon such compliance.
Direction for deposit and compliance:
The judgment directed the appellants to deposit a specific sum within a defined timeframe and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals). Upon deposit and verification of compliance, the Commissioner (Appeals) would proceed to hear the case on its merits, leading to the disposal of the appeals accordingly.
-
2005 (11) TMI 394
Issues: Imposition of penalty and redemption fine on excess goods found during Central Excise Officers' visits.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty and redemption fine on goods found in excess during visits by Central Excise Officers. The appellant's factory was visited, and excess plywood and veneer were discovered, leading to a Show Cause Notice for confiscation and penalties.
2. The officers seized the goods, and after adjudication, the goods were confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. On appeal, the Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000. The appellant argued that the seized goods were in-process and had not reached the RG-I stage, denying any mens rea for not accounting the goods.
3. The appellant contended that the goods were not ready for dispatch as they were in-process and had not reached the required stage. The Revenue argued that the goods were ready for dispatch as they were stamped and found outside the bonded store room, indicating a risk of clandestine removal.
4. The Tribunal observed that the Show Cause Notice lacked allegations of intent to remove goods clandestinely. It noted the appellant's immediate communication regarding the goods' in-process status and the absence of contrary evidence. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal held that mere non-accounting of goods does not imply intent for clandestine removal, requiring mens rea for penalties and confiscation.
5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the appellant. However, it found a violation of Central Excise Law due to the appellant's failure to record in-process goods. Therefore, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, to be paid immediately. The appeal was partially allowed based on the modifications mentioned.
-
2005 (11) TMI 393
Issues involved:
Demand of duty on alleged clandestine removal by the appellants.
Analysis:
The case revolves around the demand of duty on alleged clandestine removal by the appellants. The Officers of the Department visited the appellants and concluded that duty payable goods were removed without payment of duty. A show cause notice was served, leading to proceedings dropped by the adjudicating authority due to lack of corroborative evidence. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the Department failed to provide clinching evidence of clandestine removal. They highlighted their eligibility for Modvat credit on purchased inputs, supported by a letter certifying the duty paid nature of inputs. The Department contended that proper declarations for SSI status and Modvat credit were not filed, and pointed to the Director's statement on maintaining two sets of invoices.
Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was observed that the charge of clandestine removal was based on factors like high scrap generation, fictitious sales, and the Director's statement. However, there was a lack of corroborative evidence to support these allegations. Despite this, it was noted that even in cases of clandestine removal, appellants eligible for Modvat credit could avail it post the Department's notice. In this instance, the appellants were confirmed to have Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 16 lakhs, supported by Revenue Authorities at the suppliers' end. Consequently, a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit of duty was established. As a result, the application for stay was granted, and the recovery of duty was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2005 (11) TMI 392
Issues:
1. Applicability of penalties for default in payment of excise duty under Compounded Levy Scheme.
2. Claim of factory closure as a defense against penalty imposition.
3. Interpretation of legal plea regarding the deletion of Section 3A from the statute book.
Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Alloy Steel products under the Compounded Levy Scheme, defaulted in paying excise duty for the period Nov.'98 to Mar.'99. Despite remitting the duty with interest upon detection, show-cause notices were issued seeking penalties. The original authority imposed penalties equal to the duty amounts, which were reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for different periods. The appellants contested the penalties, claiming they shut down their factory on 14-10-1998 and were not liable for duty from that date. However, the authority rejected this defense, holding the appellants liable for the penalties based on the default in monthly duty payments under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The appellants failed to apply for abatement of duty during the factory closure period, leading to the rejection of the duty demand avoidance based on closure. The legal plea raised by the appellants contended that they were not liable to pay excise duty post the deletion of Section 3A from the statute book effective 11-5-2001. The tribunal found this argument illogical as Section 3A was applicable during the dispute period. As the appellants operated under Section 3A without claiming abatement, they were obligated to discharge duty as per the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) determined by the Commissioner, even though the payment was made belatedly and without protest. The key issue was whether penal liability existed for the default in monthly duty payments under the mandatory Rule 96ZP(3), which the lower appellate authority addressed by substantially reducing the penalties in a fair manner, affirming the impugned order.
3. The tribunal affirmed the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the appeals and upholding the reduced penalties. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 96ZP(3) and the appellants' obligation to pay duty under Section 3A during the material period, rejecting the arguments related to factory closure and the deletion of Section 3A from the statute book as grounds for penalty avoidance.
-
2005 (11) TMI 391
Issues:
1. Redetermination of annual capacity of production by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Interpretation of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
3. Provision for redetermination under the Rules.
Issue 1: Redetermination of annual capacity of production
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, redetermined the annual capacity of production of the appellant re-rolling mill at 14166.505 MT for the year 1999-2000. The appellants contested this redetermination, arguing that there was no provision for redetermination under the Rules. The appellant mill had been provisionally determined at 12170.0124 MT and finally determined at 12168.80 MT in previous orders. The department sought redetermination as the actual production exceeded the initially determined capacity. However, the Tribunal found that there was no provision for redetermination in the Rules. The Tribunal concluded that the Rules did not provide for redetermination and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997
The Tribunal analyzed the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 to determine whether redetermination was permissible under the provisions. Rule 5 was cited by the department to support the contention that redetermination was allowed. However, upon careful examination, the Tribunal noted that Rule 5 stated the annual capacity determined shall be deemed equal to the actual production of the mill in the previous financial year but did not explicitly provide for redetermination. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's submission that there was no provision for redetermination under the Rules. This interpretation led to the setting aside of the redetermination order by the Commissioner.
Issue 3: Provision for redetermination under the Rules
The central issue revolved around whether the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 contained a provision for redetermination of annual production capacity. The Tribunal, after a thorough review of the Rules, concurred with the appellant's argument that there was no specific provision allowing for redetermination. The absence of a clear provision for redetermination led the Tribunal to conclude that the impugned order of redetermination by the Commissioner was not in accordance with the Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the redetermination order and allowed the appeal based on the lack of provision for redetermination under the Rules.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of redetermination of annual production capacity, interpretation of the relevant rules, and the absence of a provision for redetermination under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
-
2005 (11) TMI 390
Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit on modvatable invoices issued by a registered dealer without premises.
2. Allegation of invalid documents for availing Modvat credit.
3. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Interpretation of Circular No. 96/7/95 regarding the necessity of a godown or office premises for issuing modvatable invoices.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA addressed the issue of the appellant availing Modvat credit on modvatable invoices from a registered dealer without premises. The Department alleged that such invoices were invalid for claiming credit as the dealer lacked a godown or office for dealing in excisable goods. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The ld. S.D.R. argued that the appellant's credit availment was incorrect since the registered dealer issued invoices without the necessary premises, citing Circular No. 96/7/95. However, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not mention non-receipt or consumption of inputs by the appellant, and the registered dealer was not asked to provide documents related to dispatches of modvatable invoices.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion was based on Rule 57GG, stating the dealer failed to provide evidence of goods dispatch from their godown. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of notice to the dealer to produce such documents, highlighting that the dealer's registration should have been canceled if premises were lacking. Since no cancellation was evident, the Tribunal ruled that faulting the appellant for using the dealer's invoices was unjustified.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal, providing relief to the appellant due to the absence of evidence supporting the denial of Modvat credit. This decision underscores the importance of proper procedures and evidence in challenging credit availment based on dealer invoices without the necessary premises.
-
2005 (11) TMI 389
Block assessment in search cases - Search and seizure - Undisclosed income - On money paid for acquiring flats and shops - addition based on loose papers - interior decoration and household expenses -whether the declaration/admission so made in the statement can be effectively and successfully retracted - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that by its declaration and acts the assessee intentionally caused/made the departmental authorities to believe the declaration made by the assessee to be true and induced them to act upon such belief. In our view it is not open to the assessee to change the stand it has already taken and thus cause the situation in his favour by inducing the department not to investigate or enquire into the matter on the seized documents. It is not open to the assessee to turn around of the said declaration.
In fact to our understanding, the affidavit of Shri Manmohan Singh is only a bald denial and nothing else. It does not contain any new evidence, fact or material. There is nothing in this affidavit to rebut the contents of the seized documents as shown on page 7 bundle No. 14 of party R6. Thus, such affidavit or even the letter written to the CIT can neither negate the declaration of disclosure given on oath by the assessee nor can it become the basis of retraction of the declaration made u/s 132(4). When we compare the fact situations in two cases, one when the statement u/s 132(4) was recorded and the other when the retraction was tendered, we find that, in the former, there is very little time and scope of artificiality, or stating falsity, the assessee is not in a frame of mind where he could create some explanation which is not true. Only possibility is that he may, state something or some facts of which he may not be aware.
Whatever spontaneous answers come they are mostly true unless, proved with acceptable facts otherwise. When the statement is given that on- money has been paid, it should be accepted as true because it is in the very personal knowledge of the assessee. What he knows only he can state. Once he states on oath, some thing personal and only known to him, it must be true. About facts and events like this, only he is privy and he also knows the consequences of stating the truth that he has to pay taxes thereon on such disclosure, then the truth becomes an inseparable ingredient of the disclosure.
In the present case the delay in retraction was inordinate. The explanation for delay was far from convincing. What he stated 11 months after he could have stated next day of the search. There was no need for consultation, if whole thing was false. As a matter of fact it was not. Therefore, entire set of submissions relating to retraction deserves to be rejected.
During the course of search, at the residential premises of Mrs. Dolly Ghosh, a memorandum of understanding dated 25-7-1991 signed by her and Shri Manmohan Singh was found. When Shri Manmohan Singh was confronted with this MOU, he admitted to have paid in cash to her for resigning from the partnership. The payment was admitted to be unaccounted. Shri Manmohan Singh thus disclosed a sum for block period. This sum was offered in block return also.
From this it is clear that whatever he has stated u/s 132(4) and admitted as his concealed income was based on documentary evidence confronted to him. There was no disclosure or admission which was not found supported with evidence. The disclosure being on-money for shops and flats in Tulsi Shyam Building was based on document No. 7 bundle No. 14 party R6. Disclosure as based on stamped receipts. The disclosure of Rs. 2,70,000 was based on inspection of the house during the course of search showing freshly carried out renovations etc. On the other hand, the retraction was based on no evidence. In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that there was any coercion or pressure or duress while recording statement u/s 132(2)/131(1A) and also assessee’s retraction subsequently and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer made on the basis of seized documents as well as disclosure and admission made u/s 132(4) and further enhanced u/s 131(1A).
As a result, addition being on-money paid for acquiring flats and shops in Tulsi Shyam Building, sum based on loose paper Nos. 48 to 50 being stamped receipts and being unaccounted expenditure on renovation and interior decoration covered in ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 in assessee’s appeal are confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Unexplained business expenditure - NRI gift - Payment of on-money towards purchase of flat - After considering the material and also the case laws cited in the case of Shri Manmohan Singh, we are of the view that issue simply boils down to the point that whether statement given u/s 132(4) has to be used against the assessee or retraction is given weightage and additions be deleted. The issue has been considered in detail in the case of Shri Manmohan Singh Vig (HUF) by this Tribunal.
Following the decision of Tribunal in Manmohan Singh Vig (HUF)’s case (supra), we hold that the retraction or rather denial is not established by any material/evidence and hence the same cannot be substituted for admission made by the assessee under sections 132(4) and 131(1A) and supported by documentary evidence found in the search. This is the position in respect of all the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the additions made are confirmed. No evidence has been furnished to show as to how the case of the assessee does not fall under Chapter XIV-B. We reject this contention. We reject all the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard.
In result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 388
Adjustment towards interest payable u/s 234B(2)(ii) - Calculation of interest under sections 234B and 234C by invoking section 140A - Interpretation of Statute - Calculation of interest on interest - HELD THAT:- Section 234B and section 140A both are separate and independent sections of the Act, section 234B(1) provides general situation of calculation of interest. The period for which interest under this section leviable is from the 1st day of April next following financial year to the date of determination of total income u/s 143(1)/regular assessment. The amount on which interest payable is equal to the assessed tax or the amount by which the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax. The facts of controversy under consideration is not related to the above general calculation of interest but falls under section 234B(2). This sub-section (2) of section 234B provides the calculation of interest where tax is paid by the assessee under section 140A or otherwise before the date of determination of total income u/s 143(1)/completion of a regular assessment.
The interest shall be calculated as provided general calculation in section 234B(1). The important thing provides is that simple interest u/s 234B(1) is to be calculated at the prescribed rate. The difference in calculation interest in that section 234B(1) and in section 234B(2) is that in section 234B(2) the simple interest is to be calculated up to the date on which the tax is so paid.
At the time of filing return of income, Explanation to section 140A is required to consider. The newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-1989) Explanation to section 140A(1) takes care of a situation where the amount paid by the assessee u/s 140A(1) falls short of the aggregate of the tax and interest as mentioned therein. In such a situation, the amount, so paid is first to be adjusted towards the interest payable and the balance, if any, is to be adjusted towards the tax payable.
Since the assessee has made short payment, therefore, interest is leviable on Rs. 5,81,520 in accordance with section 234B(2)(ii). This provision is reproduced as above. Thus, this provision required to calculate interest by the prescribed rate on the balance amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax.
We are of the considered view that adjustment towards interest payable u/s 234B is to be considered only at the time of filing return of income i.e., when payment of self-assessment u/s 140A is required to be made. Before that interest u/s 234B is independently required to be calculated only in accordance with the provisions provided in section 234B(i). If at the time of filing return it is found short payment after adjustment of interest out of tax paid u/s 140A, further interest is required to calculate in accordance with section 234B(2)(ii), on balance amount which is assessed tax minus advance tax and ad hoc payment.
Thus, we find that approach of revenue for calculation of interest u/s 234B is not correct, therefore, the orders of lower authorities are set-aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate interest u/s 234B as per above discussion.
In the result, appeals are allowed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 387
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the land as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land.
3. Interpretation of the population criterion and municipal jurisdiction under section 2(14)(iii).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of the land as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolves around whether the land in question, situated in village Bajitpur Thankran under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, qualifies as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) classified the land as a capital asset, arguing that it fell within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was thus liable to capital gains tax. The AO cited various certificates and provisions, including section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to support this classification.
2. Applicability of capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land:
The assessee claimed exemption from capital gains tax on the grounds that the land was rural agricultural land, used for agricultural purposes, and situated in a village with a population of less than 10,000. The AO, however, assessed the gain on the sale of the land as short-term capital gain, arguing that the land fell within the municipal limits and was thus a capital asset subject to tax. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, holding that the land was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) and thus exempt from capital gains tax.
3. Interpretation of the population criterion and municipal jurisdiction under section 2(14)(iii):
The CIT(A) based its decision on the fact that the land was within the Panchayat limits, had a population of less than 10,000, and was located more than 8 kms away from the nearest urbanized village. The CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Sheo Ram, which held that land within the Panchayat limits with a population of less than 10,000 was not a capital asset. The Departmental Representative, however, argued that the land fell within the Municipal Corporation's jurisdiction and thus met the criteria for being a capital asset, regardless of the population of the specific area within the municipality.
Judgment Analysis:
1. Classification of the land as a capital asset:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 2(14)(iii), which defines agricultural land and specifies that land within the jurisdiction of a municipality with a population of not less than 10,000 is considered a capital asset. The Tribunal noted that the land in question was indeed within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, fulfilling one of the conditions for being a capital asset.
2. Applicability of capital gains tax:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in G.M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT, which held that the population criterion applies to the municipality as a whole and not to individual areas within it. The Tribunal concluded that since the land was within the municipal limits of Delhi, it was a capital asset subject to capital gains tax, irrespective of the population of the specific village.
3. Interpretation of the population criterion:
The Tribunal emphasized that the population condition in section 2(14)(iii)(a) applies to the entire municipality and not to individual areas or villages within it. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in G.M. Omer Khan, which affirmed that the population of the municipality as a whole determines the applicability of the capital asset definition.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's assessment, holding that the land in question was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) and thus subject to capital gains tax. The appeal by the department was allowed, reaffirming that the land's classification as a capital asset was correct based on its location within the municipal limits of Delhi.
-
2005 (11) TMI 386
Exemption u/s 54F - Capital gains - non-resident - whether benefit of section 54F is available to a residential house purchased out of India - HELD THAT:- We noticed that originally the income-tax was first introduced in India in 1860. After independence the Income-tax Bill, 1961 came out of the legislative anvil and the Income-tax Act, 1961, received the assent of the President on 13th September, 1961 and came into force from 1st April, 1962. This Act was made applicable to the whole of India. Since this Act applicable in India, therefore, the provisions of this Act are applicable in India and same are required to be read accordingly. Thus section 54F is also required to read accordingly, the words ‘purchase/construction of a residential house’ on plain and simple reading means, the purchase/construction of a residential house must be in India and not outside India.
Following the decision in the case of Padmasundara Rao [2002 (3) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT] and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], we find that a residential house purchased/constructed must be in India and not outside India, in USA. This interpretation is strongly supported by the marginal note to section 54F. Section 54F inserted by the Finance Act, 1982, with effect from 1-4-2003. It has been explained in Circular No. 346,- Explanatory notes on the provisions of Finance Act, 1982 in para 20.2 "with a view to encouraging house construction, the Finance Act, 1982, has inserted a new section 54F.".
Thus, we hold that benefit u/s 54F is not allowable for a residential house purchased/constructed outside India. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 385
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of compensation received for loss of business.
2. Accrual of compensation income.
3. Treatment of expenses on repairs of premises.
4. Provision for pro rata premium on redemption of debentures.
5. Provision for bad debts.
6. Disallowance on account of non-repatriable foreign assets.
7. Compensation for release of employees.
8. Compensation on surrender of tenancy rights.
9. Expenses incurred on bonus issue.
10. Disallowance of expenses on food, beverages, etc., during conferences at hotels and clubs.
11. Expenditure on canteen facilities.
12. Expenses on maintenance of guest house and holiday home.
13. Interest earned on investments of spare funds and dividend.
14. Deduction under section 80HH.
15. Deduction under section 80-I.
16. Inclusion of unutilized Modvat in the valuation of closing stock.
17. Disallowance under rule 6D.
18. Expenditure on membership fees of various clubs.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Compensation Received for Loss of Business:
The first ground concerns the addition of Rs. 80 lakhs as compensation for loss of business, considered taxable as business receipt under section 28(ii)(a)(b)(c). The assessee argued that the amount was a capital receipt for giving up the right to set up a new WAN business. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld that the compensation was for the termination of the agency, thus taxable under section 28(ii)(b)/(c).
2. Accrual of Compensation Income:
The second ground raised by the assessee was that the compensation accrued in later years and should not be taxable in the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the income accrued on 30th March 1992, thus assessable for the year 1992-93.
3. Treatment of Expenses on Repairs of Premises:
The third ground relates to expenses on repairs treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the ground, following its decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1991-92.
4. Provision for Pro Rata Premium on Redemption of Debentures:
The fourth ground concerns the provision for pro rata premium on redemption of debentures. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation.
5. Provision for Bad Debts:
The fifth ground relates to the provision for bad debts, which was disallowed. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide in light of the retrospective insertion of the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii).
6. Disallowance on Account of Non-Repatriable Foreign Assets:
The sixth ground concerns the disallowance of non-repatriable foreign assets. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following its decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1991-92.
7. Compensation for Release of Employees:
The seventh ground concerns compensation received for the release of employees, treated as revenue receipt. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following its decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1991-92.
8. Compensation on Surrender of Tenancy Rights:
The eighth ground concerns compensation received on surrender of tenancy rights, treated as revenue receipt. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. D.P. Sandhu Bros. and the Bombay High Court decision in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Ltd.
9. Expenses Incurred on Bonus Issue:
The ninth ground concerns expenses on the bonus issue. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following the Bombay High Court decision in General Insurance Corporation Ltd.
10. Disallowance of Expenses on Food, Beverages, etc., During Conferences at Hotels and Clubs:
The tenth and eleventh grounds concern disallowance of expenses on food, beverages, etc., during conferences at hotels and clubs. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance, considering 25% of such expenses as spent on employees.
11. Expenditure on Canteen Facilities:
The twelfth ground concerns disallowance of expenditure on canteen facilities. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 10%, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute accordingly.
12. Expenses on Maintenance of Guest House and Holiday Home:
The thirteenth ground concerns disallowance of expenses on the maintenance of guest house and holiday home. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance on the guest house and remanded the issue of holiday home expenses to the Assessing Officer.
13. Interest Earned on Investments of Spare Funds and Dividend:
The fourteenth ground concerns interest earned on investments of spare funds and dividend. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
14. Deduction under Section 80HH:
The fifteenth ground concerns deduction under section 80HH. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer, following its decision for the assessment year 1991-92.
15. Deduction under Section 80-I:
The sixteenth ground concerns deduction under section 80-I. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust.
16. Inclusion of Unutilized Modvat in the Valuation of Closing Stock:
The first ground in the Revenue's appeal concerns the inclusion of unutilized Modvat in the valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, following the Supreme Court decision in Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
17. Disallowance under Rule 6D:
The second ground in the Revenue's appeal concerns disallowance under rule 6D. The Tribunal allowed this ground, following its decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1991-92.
18. Expenditure on Membership Fees of Various Clubs:
The fifth ground in the Revenue's appeal concerns expenditure on membership fees of various clubs. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, following its decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1994-95.
Conclusion:
Both the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds while remanding some issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
............
|
9911796707
