Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 658 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 556
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the interpretation of whether the sales were in the course of export of goods out of India and the applicability of a specific legal precedent to the case.
  
  Interpretation of sales in the course of export:
  The assessee exported shoes to USSR through the State Trading Corporation (STC) with all necessary documents submitted after the goods entered the export stream. The Tribunal considered the time taken for a ship to cross India's territorial waters and concluded that since payments were made after the goods crossed the territorial waters, the sales were deemed to have taken place in the high seas and in the exportation stream. A similar procedure was followed for goods sent by air, with payments made only after the goods left the customs frontiers of India by aircraft.
  
  Applicability of legal precedent:
  The Tribunal considered the decision in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa, where it was held that integrated transactions alone could not occasion the sale in the course of export of goods. In the present case, unlike in the mentioned precedent, the facts on record showed that the sale of goods took place after crossing the custom frontiers by both ship and aircraft.
  
  Legal interpretation and conclusion:
  Referring to section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which deems a sale to take place in the course of export if it occasions such export or is effected after crossing customs frontiers, the Court found that the sales in this case occurred after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers by both ship and aircraft. As the Tribunal's factual determination was not challenged as perverse, the Court held that no sales tax would be leviable on the transactions, answering both questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
  
  Disposition:
  The reference under section 45(1) of the Act was disposed of accordingly, with the Court ruling in favor of the assessee based on the factual findings and legal interpretation presented.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 555
  

  Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal had properly and correctly applied the test of the user and common parlance as prevalent in the commercial world while deciding the taxability of the goods in question?

  Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in placing the reliance upon only literature furnished by the dealer in respect of the goods in question?

  Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding the taxability of Emami Naturally Fair Cream/Lotion as a medicine?

  Held that:- In this case, the second appellate authority has given no reason in coming to the conclusion it has reached that certain items may be classified either as medicines or cosmetics and this too must be done after giving due consideration to the evidences, which have been produced before it. The evidence has been furnished by the assessee by giving specific findings and reason. Therefore remand the matter to the Tribunal to apply "twin test" in the case of the assessee also. The Tribunal on remand may decide the issue in accordance with law, expeditiously.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 554
  

  Whether the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in not holding that the revision petitioner is entitled for exemption from purchase tax under section 5A of the KGST Act for the turnover on the soft wood consumed for the manufacture of block board considering S.R.O. No. 403 of 99 as also clarificatory letters dated June 8, 2002 and June 29, 2002 from the Government?

  Held that:- Taking into consideration the pathetic situation of the assessee and persons similarly placed, the State Government has issued a notification S.R.O. No. 593 of 2004 dated June 7, 2004 which has come into effect from January 1, 2000 granting exemption on the purchase turnover of soft wood, if the same is used in the manufacture of block board and block board frames. The State Government has also issued yet another notification S.R.O. No. 689 of 2007 dated July 6, 2007 which has been given retrospective effect from April 1, 1994 to December 31, 1999.

  In view of these notifications, the State Government has clarified that the manufacturers of block board and block board frames who purchases and consumes soft wood are eligible and entitled for exemption under the notifications S.R.O. No. 403 of 1994, S. R.O. No. 593 of 2004 and S.R.O. No. 689 of 2007. In view of the notifications so issued by the State Government it is now difficult to sustain the orders passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the sales tax revision is allowed. The matter is now remanded back to the assessing authority to redo the assessment in accordance with law and in the light of the notifications S.R.O. No. 403 of 1994, S.R.O. No. 593 of 2004 and S.R.O. No. 689 of 2007.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 553
  

  Revision - period of limitation - Held that:- As in the present case, the Tribunal has held that the order of rectification passed on September 4, 1984 has been passed suo motu and it was not on any application made before the assessing authority, the order passed after a period of three years from May 30, 1981 was barred by limitation.

  The revision has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 552
  

  Availment of input tax credit for the period from January 2007 to June 2007 reversed - Held that:- Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to adjudicate the factual finding before the appellate authority, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer the statutory appeal along with the payment of statutory tax within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the appellate authority shall consider all the points raised in the appeal and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

  The letter of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fast Track Court, Assessment Circle-I, Coimbatore, addressed to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Main Branch, Coimbatore, for realisation of the reversal of VAT for the period between January 2007 to June 2007 is directed to be withdrawn immediately and the Bank Manager, Indian Bank, Main Branch, Coimbatore, is hereby directed not to give effect to the request made by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fast Track Court, Assessment Circle-I, Coimbatore. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 551
  

  Whether HDPE/PP fabrics are covered by entry "textile fabrics" given in entry 52 of Schedule A appended to the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh) and, therefore, exempt from payment of tax in the Union Territory of Chandigarh?

  Held that:- HDPE figures at serial No. 162 in the list of taxable items under entry 58 of Schedule B. The aforementioned entry 58 under the heading "industrial inputs and packing materials", has been elaborated to include HDPE, which figure at serial No. 162. Once the statute itself has included HDPE as a taxable item then it is not possible for us to take a contrary view that such an item would not be taxable or that such an item has to be considered as textile fabrics including terry towels under Schedule "A", listing tax-free goods. Thus, the argument is wholly without substance and we have no hesitation to reject the same. The other arguments based on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court would also not advance the case of the assessee-appellant because the external aid like the standardisation by Indian Standard Institute (ISI) could be resorted to in case where there is ambiguity or the item has not been included in the statute. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 550
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition of Rs. 19,03,027 as investment in silver bullion.
  2. Addition of Rs. 8,72,713 as investment in silver ornaments.
  3. Addition of Rs. 50,787 as undisclosed cash.
  4. Addition of Rs. 3,89,545 as unexplained investment in shares.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Addition of Rs. 19,03,027 as Investment in Silver Bullion:
  The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 19,03,027 for silver bullion weighing 265.9 kgs seized from their residence. The assessee claimed that 240 kgs belonged to his sons, inherited from their grandfather, and 25.9 kgs belonged to him, disclosed under the VDIS of 1975. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax rejected this claim due to lack of evidence, such as a will, and the fact that the sons did not disclose these assets in their balance sheets or wealth-tax returns. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that the inheritance of silver bullion in Indian families without a written will is common. The Tribunal directed that the addition should be considered in the hands of the sons, not the assessee.
  
  2. Addition of Rs. 8,72,713 as Investment in Silver Ornaments:
  The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 8,72,713 for silver ornaments weighing 412.143 kgs found at various premises. The ornaments were claimed to belong to customers for polishing work and not the assessee. The Tribunal found that the ornaments belonged to the son, who dealt in dalali business, and the assessee only facilitated the polishing. The Tribunal directed that the addition should be considered in the hands of the son, not the assessee.
  
  3. Addition of Rs. 50,787 as Undisclosed Cash:
  The assessee explained that the cash of Rs. 50,787 was from the sale of gold ornaments received at the time of marriage. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim due to insufficient evidence, such as the absence of a detailed receipt. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's explanation, noting the confirmation from the dalal who facilitated the sale. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
  
  4. Addition of Rs. 3,89,545 as Unexplained Investment in Shares:
  The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 3,89,545 for shares found during the search. The assessee claimed that these shares belonged to his son, who dealt in share business. The Tribunal accepted the son's confirmation letter and directed that the addition should be considered in the hands of the son, not the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly for statistical purposes, directing that the additions related to silver bullion, silver ornaments, and shares should be considered in the hands of the respective owners (the assessee's sons) and not the assessee. The addition of Rs. 50,787 as undisclosed cash was deleted based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 549
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 72A(4) in respect of unabsorbed expenditure on scientific research.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Entitlement to Benefit u/s 72A(4) for Unabsorbed Expenditure on Scientific Research

  The Department appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the claim of unabsorbed loss on capital expenditure on scientific research and development of the demerged company, treating it as accumulated loss/depreciation loss u/s 32(2) and hence to be treated at par for the purpose as contemplated u/s 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act.

  Facts of the case: M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (demerged company) had unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research before demerger. Upon demerger, these were allocated between the demerged company and the resulting company, M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (assessee). The Assessing Officer allowed the benefit of section 72A(4) for unabsorbed depreciation but denied it for unabsorbed expenditure on scientific research.

  The Assessing Officer observed that the business loss cannot be equated with the loss on expenditure on scientific research, as the latter is a weighted deduction and not computed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. Therefore, it does not amount to accumulated loss. The unabsorbed loss on capital expenditure on scientific research cannot be termed as 'depreciation loss' and hence is not covered by section 72A(4).

  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decided in favor of the assessee, but the Department appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined sections 35(4), 32(2), 72, and 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act. Section 35(4) allows unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research to be carried forward in the same manner as unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(2). However, section 72(2) prioritizes the set-off of business losses over unabsorbed depreciation.

  Section 72A(4) allows the carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the case of demerger. The definitions of 'accumulated loss' and 'unabsorbed depreciation' in section 72A(7) do not include unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research. Therefore, the benefit of section 72A(4) is not extended to unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research.

  The Tribunal concluded that the unabsorbed portion of capital expenditure on scientific research cannot be treated as part of accumulated loss or unabsorbed depreciation for the purpose of section 72A(4). Consequently, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was reversed, and the Assessing Officer's decision was restored.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 548
  

  Service Tax – Consulting Engineer (1) Operation and maintenance of power plant (2) Contract between operator and owner (3) Demand not sustainable (4) Constitution of India (job work) - revenue did not file any appeal against the ealier decision of the Tribunal in Rolls Royce Industries Poer (I) Ltd. Versus CCE [2004 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) - the same has attained finality - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 547
  
  Issues Involved: Application for rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal regarding the treatment of goods received from 100% EOU as imported goods and the demand of duty equivalent to the aggregate of customs duty, applicability of proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reliance on the statement of the proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles, and the scope of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Treatment of Goods from 100% EOU as Imported Goods:
  The applicant contended that the Tribunal erred in treating goods received from 100% EOU as imported goods and demanding duty equivalent to the aggregate of customs duty. However, the Tribunal clarified that duty payable by 100% EOUs on goods manufactured by them is excise duty, not customs duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty demanded with reference to the customs tariff is essentially excise duty under Section 11A, and in this case, the goods were not manufactured by the appellant, a 100% EOU. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the goods should be treated as imported goods.
  
  2. Applicability of Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
  The applicant raised concerns about the applicability of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of the main section. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument as the duty demanded was in line with the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal clarified that the duty was correctly demanded under the relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, and there was no mistake in this regard.
  
  3. Reliance on the Statement of the Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles:
  The applicant contested the Tribunal's decision to uphold the duty demand based on the statement of the proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles. Despite this challenge, the Tribunal found no error in relying on the statement during the proceedings. The Tribunal maintained that the duty demand was justified, and the reliance on the statement was appropriate in the context of the case.
  
  4. Scope of Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application:
  The applicant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order based on various grounds, including the treatment of goods, applicability of provisions, and reliance on evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that the issues raised were already addressed during the proceedings, and there was no mistake apparent on record warranting rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that the ROM application could not be used to review the order or challenge the merits of the case, as the order was appealable.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, stating that it lacked merit and did not present any valid grounds for rectification. The judgment reaffirmed the original decision regarding the treatment of goods from 100% EOU, the application of relevant provisions, and the reliance on evidence, highlighting the importance of adhering to the legal framework and procedural requirements in such matters.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 546
  
  Issues Involved:
  The appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition made on account of under valuation of closing stock by non-inclusion of excise duty in value of closing stock.
  
  Summary:
  The question raised for consideration was whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of under valuation of closing stock by non-inclusion of excise duty in value of closing stock. The Assessing Officer had made the addition of excise duty payable on the goods manufactured by the assessee in the computation of the value of the stock. The department relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 441. However, the High Court observed that the interpretation of the department was misconceived. The High Court referred to section 145A of the Income-tax Act, which states that the amount of tax, duty, cess, or fee should be included in the value of goods only if it is actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location. As the excise duty had not been paid by the assessee on the goods in stock since the goods did not leave the premises, there was no justification for adding the excise duty to the price of the raw material. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the question raised did not arise out of the facts of the case.
  
  This judgment clarifies the application of section 145A of the Income-tax Act in determining the value of goods for income tax purposes, specifically regarding the inclusion of tax, duty, cess, or fee in the valuation of goods in stock.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 545
  
  Issues:
  1. Competency of the appellant to file the appeal.
  2. Pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals.
  
  Competency of the appellant to file the appeal:
  The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant's competency to file the appeal. The appellant, Shri Rakesh Gupta, declared himself as a deemed proprietor of M/s. Systech Equipment Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that Shri Rakesh Gupta had not suffered any legal injury in the matter, and the appeal should have been filed by the private limited company itself. It was argued that Shri Rakesh Gupta could not claim himself as a "deemed proprietor" of a private limited company. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that the appeal was incompetent as the appellant could not be considered a legally aggrieved person. Therefore, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed.
  
  Pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals:
  The judgment also deals with the issue of pre-deposit for hearing the appeals filed by M/s. Turnkey Software and Shri Rakesh Gupta. The goods worth Rs. 2,32,96,000/- were in the custody of Revenue authorities, while the total amount of duty, fines, and penalties imposed on the appellants was Rs. 1,38,02,931/-. The appellants argued that the value of the goods in custody exceeded the amount demanded from them, and thus requested that the value of the goods be considered as a pre-deposit for the appeal hearings. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal accepted this request based on the circumstances and directed the Registry to list the appeals in the first week of February 2008. Consequently, the stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issues of the appellant's competency to file the appeal and the pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals. The Tribunal found the appellant incompetent to file the appeal as a legally aggrieved person and dismissed the appeal. However, it allowed the pre-deposit request made by the appellants regarding the value of goods in custody, directing the listing of appeals for hearing in the specified timeframe.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 544
  
  Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, independence of appellant's appeal from main party's appeal, applicability of previous rulings on delay condonation.
  
  Condonation of Delay:
  The applicant sought condonation of a 214-day delay in filing the appeal, citing a belief that no additional appeal was necessary after the main party filed their appeal. The appellant relied on past rulings where marginal delays were condoned based on satisfactory explanations. However, the Commissioner opposed the delay condonation, arguing that the appellant's appeal was independent of the main party's appeal, and the appellant's awareness of the need for a separate appeal indicated negligence. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation unsatisfactory, noting their awareness of the appeal requirement but failure to act until after the main party's appeal was disposed of. Consequently, the condonation application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal.
  
  Independence of Appeals:
  The Tribunal determined that the appellant's appeal was not a supplementary appeal of the main party's appeal, as the main party's appeal had already been resolved before the appellant filed their appeal. The appellant's failure to challenge the order against them separately, despite being aware of the necessity to do so, indicated negligence and lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct prayers and orders for each party involved, highlighting the appellant's inaction and clear negligence in not filing a timely appeal.
  
  Applicability of Previous Rulings:
  The Tribunal considered past rulings where delay condonation was granted due to marginal delays and satisfactory explanations. However, in this case, the Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for delay unsatisfactory, as they chose not to file an appeal despite being aware of the requirement to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's decision to file the appeal only after the main party's appeal was disposed of did not justify the delay. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal.
  

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 543
  
  Issues:
  1. Duty demand confirmation with penalty and interest.
  2. Imposition of penalty on Vice President of the Appellant-Company.
  3. Central Excise duty demand and recovery.
  4. Interest charge and recovery.
  5. Imposition of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Duty Demand Confirmation with Penalty and Interest
  The Appellant appealed against the order confirming duty demand of Rs. 11,67,532/- with penalty and interest. The ld. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the Vice President of the Appellant-Company. However, the appeal did not include the Vice President's petition, so the appeal was considered for the company only.
  
  Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty on Vice President
  The penalty imposed on the Vice President was not part of the appeal, as there was no petition from him. The appeal was solely focused on the Appellant-Company.
  
  Issue 3: Central Excise Duty Demand and Recovery
  The Appellant was asked to show cause regarding the duty demand, interest, and penalty. The ld. Commissioner concluded that the demand was justified based on various submissions. The demand arose from the shortage of finished goods, removal of assorted inputs, and clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots.
  
  Issue 4: Interest Charge and Recovery
  Interest at an appropriate rate was charged and recovered from the Appellant as per Section 11AB of the Act.
  
  Issue 5: Imposition of Penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules
  Penalties were imposed under Rule 13 (1&2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Act. The ld. Commissioner considered various submissions by the Appellant but upheld the demand and penalties based on the evidence presented.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal found discrepancies in the impugned order, especially in the lack of specific allegations and a speaking order. The order did not provide a clear breakdown of the duty involved in each allegation, leading to legal infirmities. The Tribunal noted issues with the investigation and evidence presented, highlighting violations of natural justice and the need for a proper process.
  
  The Tribunal upheld some demands related to inputs and finished goods based on evidence and admissions by the Appellant. However, it found deficiencies in the investigation regarding certain allegations, leading to the rejection of a significant duty demand. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to pay a reduced penalty, considering the upheld allegations.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal addressing the legal infirmities in the impugned order and making specific determinations on the duty demands and penalties involved in the case.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 542
  
  Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods including Welding Electrodes, Shaft, Asbestos Packing/CAF Jointing Sheet, Plates/Shafts/Sections of Iron and Steel.
  
  Welding Electrodes: The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit on Welding Electrodes based on previous rulings stating that manufacturers are not entitled to credit for welding electrodes as inputs or capital goods.
  
  Shaft: The shaft, being a part of the main rollers and classified under Chapter 84 as a component of the machine, is considered eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods. Denial of credit on shaft is set aside.
  
  Asbestos Packing/CAF Jointing Sheet: Asbestos packing/compressed asbestos fibers used for preventing leakage in pipes are considered integral parts of sugar machinery and entitled to Cenvat credit as capital goods. Denial of credit on these items is set aside.
  
  Plates/Sheets/Sections/Shafts-Iron: These items, used for making shades in the factory, are considered construction/fabrication material and not falling within the definition of components, accessories, or spares of capital goods. The denial of credit on these items is upheld based on their use for making structures rather than for repair and maintenance of machinery.
  
  In conclusion, the credit on Asbestos and Shaft is allowed, while the denial of credit on Welding Electrodes and S.S. plates is upheld. The issue revolves around the admissibility of Cenvat credit on various goods and the interpretation of statutes, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposition.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 541
  
  Issues Involved:
  The denial of abatement claim due to failure to intimate closing stock balance during factory closure.
  
  Summary:
  The case involved the denial of abatement claim due to the appellant's alleged failure to inform the closing stock balance during the factory closure period. The appellant, a Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills, claimed abatement in duty liability as per Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, subject to compliance with Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The rule required the manufacturer to inform the authorities about factory closure, electricity meter readings, and stock balances upon closure and restart.
  
  The appellant filed abatement claims for specific periods, having followed the prescribed requirements for an earlier period. They communicated factory closure and stock details to the department. However, the Commissioner rejected subsequent abatement claims for not declaring stock balances during closure periods.
  
  For the period 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999, the appellant argued that continuous closure from 23-1-1999 to 1-5-1999 was intimated to the department, and stock remained unchanged upon restart on 2-5-1999. The Tribunal found continuous closure sufficient to waive the specific stock declaration on 1-5-1999, allowing the abatement claim for this period.
  
  Regarding the period 8-5-1999 to 19-5-1999, the appellant failed to declare stock on 8-5-1999, leading to the rejection of the abatement claim for this period. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision for this specific period.
  
  Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of declaring physical stock during closure periods. While delays in stock disclosure were noted in previous cases, timely intimation was crucial. Continuous closure justified waiving specific stock declarations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision for the period 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999 but upheld it for the period 8-5-1999 to 19-5-1999.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of based on the above considerations.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 540
  
  Issues:
  Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 for delayed discharge of duty liability.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellant filed an appeal against a penalty of Rs. 93,025 imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 for not discharging their duty liability by the due date. The appellant discharged the duty liability on 12th March 1999 instead of the stipulated 10th March 1999, along with interest. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equal to the outstanding duty amount as of the 10th day of the month, as per the rule.
  
  The advocate for the appellant argued that there was no outstanding duty liability at the end of the month, and therefore, no penalty should be imposed. He contended that the delay was not deliberate to evade duty, challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)' finding on the matter. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the liability to pay interest on the outstanding duty amount as of the 10th day of the month.
  
  Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument. Referring to Rule 96ZP(3), it was noted that the liability to pay penalty is on the outstanding duty amount at the end of the month. Since the duty was discharged on the 12th instead of the 10th, there was no outstanding duty at the end of the month, making the penalty imposition unsustainable. The Tribunal also disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)' assertion of deliberate delay to evade duty, deeming it unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the interpretation of Rule 96ZP(3) regarding the imposition of penalties for delayed discharge of duty liability, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to the absence of outstanding duty at the end of the month and rejecting the notion of deliberate delay to evade duty.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 539
  

  Business expenditure - Assessee was a private limited company promoted by a family - It appointed ‘D’, i.e., one of members of family, as a director and claimed deduction under section 37(1) in respect of director’s training expenses - Whether, on facts, there was no nexus between expenditure incurred and purpose of business, and, therefore, assessee’s claim was rightly rejected by authorities.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 538
  

  Valuation - Related persons - Held that: - From the records, it appears that only the clearances to interconnected undertakings have been taken into account for the purpose of quantifying the demanded amount. We also find that the appellants have made various legal submissions in their replies to show cause notice, which have not been taken into account by the Adjudicating Commissioner. As such, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and set aside the impugned Order and with the consent of both sides, remand the appeals to the Adjudicating Commissioner for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 537
  
  Issues involved: Stay petition to dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty u/s Rule 57CC for non-availing credit of duty on common inputs.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD heard a case where the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Starch and Starch products, sought to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed u/s Rule 57CC. The Commissioner confirmed the demand but acknowledged that the appellant was not availing credit of duty on common inputs like Hydrochloric Acid and Caustic Soda Lye for dutiable products. However, the Commissioner did not grant the benefit, citing non-compliance with Rule 6 due to lack of separate storage for inputs used in both dutiable and exempted products.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not avail credit on inputs for exempted products despite using only 10 to 12% of such inputs. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd., it was established that non-availing of credit on inputs used in final product manufacturing is compliant with Modvat rules, even without separate storage facilities for different types of inputs.
  
  After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case in their favor regarding the non-availing of credit on common inputs. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered to allow the stay petition unconditionally.
  
  *(Pronounced in Court)*

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 33