|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1389 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1253
Interim mandatory injunction - Arbitration and Conciliation - restraining the appellants from withdrawing the amounts retained by the Corporation Bank in the appellants' account to the extent of USD 60 Million and in the event the balance in the said account with the Corporation Bank is less than USD 60 Million, a direction to the appellants to deposit the short fall in the said account, so as to maintain the balance of USD 60 Millions - Held that:- As noticed an interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in exceptional cases and that too preserve or restore status quo of the last non-contesting status, which preceded the controversy. The grant of interim mandatory injunction must not amount to grant of pre trial decree. Such relief is essentially an equitable relief and discretion in that regard has to be exercised in light of facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that interests of justice would be served, if the appellants are directed to deposit an additional amount equivalent to USD 20 Million in its Corporation Bank Account at Mumbai, so that total deposit in the said account is maintained at USD 30 Million. This is on the basis that the HSBC can be said to have made out a fairly strong case, of a standard higher than a mere prima-facie case, for an award of such amount in the arbitral proceedings at Singapore. This direction to deposit, is certainly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal at Singapore. Accordingly, we may not be taken to have expressed any final opinion either upon the merits of the contentions of either parties or quantum of damages.
Thus we partly allow the present appeal. The direction to the appellants to deposit the shortfall in the Corporation Bank Account at Mumbai, so as to maintain balance of USD 60 Million is substituted by a direction to the appellants to deposit the shortfall in the said account, so as to maintain a balance of USD 30 Million within four weeks from today. Save and except the aforesaid modification, rest of the directions in the impugned judgment and order dated 22 January 2014, are hereby upheld and maintained.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1252
Offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - meditation - Held that:- In order to promote mediation as a process for an Alternative Disputes Resolution in monitory transactions as in the cases under Section 138 of the Act as it was really a civil dispute which was converted into a criminal prosecution with a view to make the drawer of the cheque to honour the cheque than to send them to prison as mentioned in the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), Court can allow reasonable time to parties to fulfill the terms of the agreement so as to avoid prolonged litigation for realisation of the amount So, under the said circumstances, in order to promote the settlement arrived at in the mediation if a reasonable time is provided in the mediation agreement namely, up to 6 months and if the parties are willing to abide by the condition, then it is always better that court can wait for that much time to allow the parties to honour the settlement that has been arrived in the mediation and the purpose of the mediation is to restore the relationship between the parties and that can be achieved by that and that will give a boost for a process of mediation to be used by the parties to resolve their disputes amicably.
So, under the circumstances, this court feels that since six months period is provided will be over by 17.08.2014, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep the case till that date without insisting for evidence so as to allow the parties to honour the settlement which has been arrived in the mediation process and if the amount is not paid and the application for compounding is not filed within that time, then the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case, considering the principles laid down in this decision regarding the mediation agreement which has not been honoured by the accused and dispose of the case in accordance with law. If a compounding application is filed on the basis of the same agreement later, then that can be taken only as a delaying process by the accused and it can be accepted only in terms of the guidelines provided in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).
-
2014 (7) TMI 1251
CENVAT credit - tour operator service - rent-a-cab service - N/N. 1/2006 - Held that: - on the very same issue in respect of the very same appellant for the earlier period, vide Final Order No. 20187/2014 dated 06.02.2014, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the issue along with the matter already remanded vide Final Order referred above - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1250
Confiscation - Misdeclaration - the decision in the case of TRIVENI STEELS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [2009 (5) TMI 792 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - there are no merit in these appeals - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1249
TPA - Rejection of comparable - Tribunal rejecting Companies on the ground of exceptionally large scale of operations and functional difference and failing the RPT filter being more than 15% - Held that:- Tribunal followed the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s.Intoto Software India (P) Limited (2013 (10) TMI 599 - ITAT HYDERABAD). Learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the above order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court. The issue therefore needs no further reconsideration
communication expenses should be excluded both from export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- Tribunal merely followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT. v. Tata Elxsi Limited (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) which was also followed by the Tribunal in ITO v. Sak Soft Limited (2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D). Though the learned Standing Counsel states that an appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, it holds good till set aside. We are not persuaded to disagree with the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court in the above decision. Np question of law.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1248
Addition on unexplained sales - Held that:- The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue against the assessee had noticed in its order dated 30.8.2013, Annexure A.3 that the dispute was relating to three sales bills amounting to ₹ 37,30,300/- under which alleged cash sales were made. There was no mention of any quantity sold. The name of the parties to whom the goods were sold was also missing. There was totalling errors in each bill and the mode of transportation of those goods also could not be explained by the assessee. On consideration of entire material on record, it was concluded that the genuineness of the transaction could not be established. The Tribunal was, thus, justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 37,30,300/- as unexplained sales.
Disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and part disallowance out of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses - Held that:- Where the respondent is aggrieved against any disallowance or addition sustained by the CIT(A) which is not under challenge at the behest of the appellant, the only remedy available with the respondent is to either file separate appeal or agitate the issue by way of cross objections in the appeal filed by the appellant impugning the disallowance or the addition sustained. Thus, no error could be pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee in the approach of the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court under Section 260A of the Act. The Tribunal had rightly not allowed the assessee to urge relating to disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and part disallowance out of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses.
No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1247
Disallowance of payment of commission - Held that:- The assessee is manufacturing of current and potential transformers & electrical control equipments. The appellant had been assisted by M/s Sadem India Ltd., Bhiwadi to execute the tender of various electricity boards. The genuineness of the payments in form of commission has not been doubted by the Revenue. The TDS has been deducted and paid to the government exchequer. The documents filed by the appellant before the lower authority supported that M/s Sadem India Ltd. has rendered service to the appellant by providing information of tender, attending the tender on behalf of the appellant, liaisoning with the various electricity boards, helping in recovering the payments, providing number of tenders, providing experience with the government department etc. The appellant had submitted all the details before the Assessing Officer to prove the services rendered by M/s Sadem India Ltd., which has not been controverted by the Revenue.
The agents have rendered the services like procurement of orders, ascertaining the quality, timely payment etc. The recipient has declared the commission in his return of income and has confirmed to have rendered the services to the assessee. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. and has rightly directed to enhance the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
Deduction u/s 80IB on interest on Bank FDRs - Held that:- The FDRs were made for providing bank guarantee to the Electricity Board. Apparently, the interest on FDRs directly connected with the industrial undertaking. Even the assessee’s argument of netting of interest income is accepted. It automatically increased the profit of the assessee undertaking and the deduction U/s 80IB of the Act is also increases. We find that FDRs were made for business purposes and for getting the tender from the Electricity Board and income from interest income is directly connected with the industrial undertaking. Therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1246
Fraudulent fund mobilization - activities of 'collective investment scheme' in terms of Section 11 AA of the SEBI Act - Held that:- It is noted that PCL was advised to respond to the preliminary enquiry conducted by SEBI, through SEBI letters dated September 17, 2013 and emails dated March 13, 2014 and April 03, 2014. However, on all these occasions, PCL delayed submission of the requisite information and also failed to furnish the scheme wise list of investors and their contact numbers and addresses as sought by SEBI. In these circumstances, find that reasonable opportunity has been afforded to PCL to respond to SEBI. When considered in the context of the abovementioned prima facie finding, the inescapable conclusion is that non-submission of the information especially scheme wise list of investors and their contact numbers and addresses to SEBI is nothing but an attempt to conceal the true nature and operation of the fund mobilizing activity of PCL.
From the material available on record, it is observed that Mr. Sudhir Shankar Moravekar (PANAADPM2933M), Mrs. Shobha Ratnakar Barde (PAN-ASLPB1204C), Mrs. Usha Arun Tari (PAN-ABYPT8841M), Shri. Manish Kalidas Gandhi (PAN-AITPG8933H), Shri. Chandrasen Ganpatrao Bhise (PAN-AADPB6103E) and Shri Ramachandran Ramakrishnan (PAN-AAIPR9196G) are the Promoters/Directors/persons in charge of the business of PCL. Further, in order to safeguard the assets/property acquired by PCL and its promoters/directors using the funds collected from the investing public until full facts and materials are brought and final decision is taken in the matter, it is incumbent on SEBI to take preventive action by way of an immediate measure. In the light of the above, I find no other alternative but to take recourse to an interim order against PCL and its Directors for preventing them from further carrying on with its existing fund mobilizing activity by launching 'collective investment scheme', without obtaining registration from SEBI in accordance with law.
We in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sections 11(1), 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 65 of CIS Regulations, hereby direct PCL and its Directors, namely, Mr. Sudhir Shankar Moravekar (PANAADPM2933M), Mrs. Shobha Ratnakar Barde (PAN-ASLPB1204C), Mrs. Usha Arun Tari (PAN-ABYPT8841M), Shri. Manish Kalidas Gandhi (PAN-AITPG8933H), Shri. Chandrasen Ganpatrao Bhise (PAN-AADPB6103E) and Shri Ramachandran Ramakrishnan (PAN-AAIPR9196G):
• not to collect any fresh money from investors under its existing scheme;
• not to launch any new schemes or plans or float any new companies to raise fresh moneys;
• to immediately submit the full inventory of the assets obtained through money raised by PCL;
• not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties/assets obtained directly or indirectly through money raised by PCL;
• not to divert any funds raised from public at large, kept in bank account(s) and/or in the custody of PCL or group companies or promoters or LLPs or Proprietary concerns or any person directly or indirectly controlled through shareholding or management by PCL ;
• to furnish all the information/details sought by SEBI within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, including,
i. Details of amount mobilized and refunded till date,
ii. Scheme wise list of investors, investment amount and addresses with contact numbers, if any.
iii. Details of agents along with address, money mobilized and commission paid
-
2014 (7) TMI 1245
Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings - seeks appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the mortgaged property described in Exh. I to the petition - interim injunction in respect of the said property and for other reliefs - Held that:- The case is made out for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the property described in Page Nos. 101 to 106 of the petition. It is made clear that the Court Receiver shall not dispossess respondent No. 1 or any third party found in possession but shall take formal possession until further orders. Till the Court Receiver takes symbolic possession of the property, there shall be ad-interim injunction as prayed in prayer clause (d) excluding the word "dealing with".
The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-reply within four weeks from today and the copy thereof shall be served on the learned Advocate for the petitioner simultaneously. In the said affidavit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall disclose on oath all the details of their movable and immovable properties whether encumbered or unencumbered.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1244
Waiver of Principal amount of long term loans - revenue receipt OR capital receipt - nature of receipt - Held that:- The waiver of amount represents waiver of the principal amount of loan utilized for acquisition of capital assets and not for the purposes of trading activity and accordingly the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY High Court ). Following it has to be held that the waiver of the 10 principal amount of loan granted by the DEG, Germany to the extent of ₹ 29,63,27,000/- in terms of OTS Scheme is in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to tax. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Suo-motu disallowance by the assessee in the computation of income - assessee had voluntarily offered an amount under the heading ‘other disallowances’ in the computation of income - Held that:- No doubt a claim of deduction or disallowance is to be worked out on the basis of the prevalent legal position and is not dependent on what stand the parties may profess. Therefore, any error or omission made in the return of income or any wrong claim in the return of income can be subject to rectification as per law. So however, in the present case, the CIT(A) has clearly established that assessee has not brought out the details of any discrepancy in anticipation of which the impugned disallowance was made by the assessee. There is no material before us, apart from generalized assertions, that the aforesaid disallowance was under any particular misconception of law or facts. The onus on this aspect is entirely on the assessee which has not been discharged, therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the authorities below. Thus, on this Ground assessee fails.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1243
Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - As per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, when a matter comes up for compliance of pre-deposit and the appellant is before the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant should be given 15 days time to get interim directions. In the present case, 15 days period got over almost five months back. Even though almost six months are over, the appellant has failed to get any interim directions from the Hon’ble High Court and the appellant has been enjoying extension of stay without any valid reason - we dismiss the appeal of the main appellant, M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As regards the co-appellants their stay petitions may be listed separately for hearing on 28th July, 2014 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1242
Rectification of mistake - the decision in the case of NEWTON ENGINEERING AND CHEMICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2015 (1) TMI 800 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said Special Civil Application with a request to grant further time to the petitioner to comply with the order of pre-deposit and, therefore, we permitted him to withdraw Special Civil Application and extended time to make payment of pre-deposit - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1241
Grant of registration under Section 10(23C) - proof of charitable activities - Held that:- The only requirement for granting registration under this Section is the satisfaction of the prescribed authority with regard to the genuineness of the activities of the assessee. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee is a Trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act which makes it quite clear that the assessee is pursuing the charitable activities. It was further observed that the provisions of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, are not applicable to the assessee being an unaided Society. Since the Pr. CCIT had not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the Society, the Tribunal correctly directed the Pr. CCIT to grant registration under Section 10(23C) of the Act.
Learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue has not been able to point out any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1240
Reopening of assessment - Deduction claim under Section 80 HHC - Held that:- Jurisdictional requirement of having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment was not satisfied, as the applicable facts were not considered. The order disposing of the objections records that the effect was given to the order dated 29 December 2013 by him on 15 February 2005. This was undisputedly much after the impugned notice. Therefore, admittedly the impugned notice has been issued on the basis of incorrect facts. On this ground also, we find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
In any view of the matter, the stand of the petitioner on merits with regard to interest income being included while computing the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC has been upheld not only by the CIT(A) but also by the Tribunal in its order dated 22 November 2006. Besides the amendment to Section 80HHC (3) of the Act by addition of fifth proviso thereto with retrospective effect will work to the benefit of the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, allowing reassessment proceedings would be a mere academic exercise only because the Assessing officer would bound by the orders of the Tribunal. Moreover, the very basis of the impugned notice dated 10 January 2005 will not be sustainable. In view of all the above reasons, we set aside the impugned notice dated 10 January 2005.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1239
Entitlement to benefit under Section 10A - substantial value addition made before the product is delivered - products manufactured and produced by third parties - assessee is in the business of providing medical transcription facilities - Held that:- Assessee is in the business of transcribing medical transcription. It has outsourced portion of its work as done by the sub contractor is in crude form and cannot be delivered in such form to the overseas customers.
The assessee has to process the said product so as to make it marketable. In other words, as rightly pointed out by the appellate authorities value addition has to be done.
It is only when that value addition is made, the said product is exported, foreign exchange is earned. The manufacture or production done by the assessee, which is eligible for exemption under Section 10A would be applicable because the transaction done by the sub- contractors in the crude form undergoes a change in the process of the assessee. Therefore, as rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 10A - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1238
Deduction u/s 10A computation - Held that:- Communication expenses should be excluded from both export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A.
TPA - comparable companies selection - Held that:- On the question of comparable cases, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 15 of the judgment and order has held that the Coordinate Benches have already decided that these companies are not to be selected for comparable cases for various reasons. Similarly, on the question of software segmentation, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 17 has followed various judgments of the Coordinate Benches. No substantial question of law.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1237
Trading addition - rejection of books of account - Held that:- After rejection of books of account facts of the earlier years are found to be same and similar, then it would be reasonable to adopt net profit rate of the earlier year without mentioning the words. However, when the assessee further explained the fall in ratio of profit and same is plausible, it is also to be considered as has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Amrapali Jewels P Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 470 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that abnormal increase in the turnover definitely compromises its margins and same has to be definitely considered while making fair estimation. It has been found in this case that during the relevant period, the assessee has made heavy investment in plant and machinery which is evident from the closing balance of the fixed assets which were produced before the A.O.
The steep rise in the cost and consumption are also relevant which are found to be correct. The fact that from the table itself it has been noted that in A.Y. 2007-08, net profit ratio was 3.85% and it has been accepted by the A.O. showing that in this assessee’s case, there has been variance in the net profit rate for various reasons applicable to that particular A.Y. The ld. CIT(A) has considered these factors and has given part relief to the assessee. Thus it would be fair and reasonable to sustain a lumpsum addition of ₹ 2.5 lakhs to answer the fall in net profit. Accordingly, we partly allow the assessee’s ground raised in its cross objection and cannot allow revenue.
Treating the interest income arising from compulsory FDRs deposits as income from other sources - Held that:- It is an undeniable fact of this case that the deposits were made for obtaining contracts in question and as per the settled position of law in this regard, this interest income has to be treated as income from assessee’s business and not income from other sources. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K & Co. [2013 (4) TMI 284 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for ready reference. Otherwise we have been taking this view consistently in contractor’s cases. Accordingly, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1236
Natural justice - validity of assessment order - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the orders of assessment have been made ex parte inasmuch as the petitioner was not given adequate notice or time to represent its case - Held that: - we are convinced that the orders of assessment have been made in hot hurry without granting proper opportunity to the writ petitioner - The orders of assessment will be made afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to present its case - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1235
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees claimed as a deduction from capital gains.
2. Non-consideration of prior favorable decisions in similar cases.
3. Lack of confrontation with case law and opportunity to present the case.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) Fees:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of Rs. 5,77,03,093/- paid by the assessee as Portfolio Management Fees (PMF) to ENAM AMC Pvt. Ltd., claimed as a deduction from capital gains under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the deduction on the grounds that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of assets. The AO emphasized that the fees paid to the Portfolio Manager were for a bundle of services and did not directly correlate with the transfer of capital assets. The AO concluded that such fees could not be claimed as a deduction as they were not directly related to the transfer of shares and securities.
2. Non-Consideration of Prior Favorable Decisions:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the PMS fees without considering the decision in favor of the assessee by the Pune Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal had previously allowed the deduction of PMS fees as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital assets. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant, which held that PMS fees were neither the cost of acquisition nor the cost of improvement of shares and were not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of assets.
3. Lack of Confrontation with Case Law and Opportunity to Present the Case:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not confront them with the case law referred to in the order and did not provide an adequate opportunity to present their case. This procedural lapse was highlighted as a significant issue, as it denied the assessee the chance to make submissions and rebut the findings effectively.
Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It referred to the ITAT Pune 'A' Bench's decision in ARA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. and others, which had allowed the deduction of PMS fees in similar circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not appealed against the Tribunal's earlier decision allowing the deduction of PMS fees in the assessee's own case. It emphasized the principle that when two views are possible, the one favorable to the assessee should be followed, as established in CIT vs. Vegetable Products.
The Tribunal also referenced the decision in DCIT vs. KRA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd., where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal reiterated that unless the decision of the Tribunal is reversed by a higher court, it should be followed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the deduction of PMS fees as claimed by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal directing the AO to allow the deduction of PMS fees as an allowable expenditure. The judgment underscores the importance of consistency in judicial decisions and adherence to procedural fairness in tax assessments.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1234
DEEC scheme - benefit of N/N. 96/2009 Cus. dt. 11.09.2009 - condition of export obligation - Tribunal by Final Order dt. 22.1.2004 decided the appeals against OIO dt. 22.11.2012 and OIO No.20684/2013 dt. 12.6.2013. In that Final order, it was recorded that it appears that importers M/s.Shree Maruti Impex had not filed any appeal against the impugned order. Now, it transpires that M/s.Shree Maruti Impex and other co-noticees filed appeals against the impugned OIO No.20685/2013 dt. 13.6.2013 against which the present appeals are filed before the Tribunal.
Held that: - as the Tribunal already remanded the matter in respect of other adjudication orders dt.22.11.2012 and 12.6.2013, it is appropriate that the present appellants also should be given an opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim of the ownership of the seized goods as claimed by M/s.Nupur Impex in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of documents and provisions of Customs Act and thereafter to decide the case in respect of the other co-notices in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
