|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 804
Whether the goods held to be improperly imported are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, even though the same are cleared and not available for seizure? - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI Versus FINESSE CREATION INC. [2009 (8) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 803
CENVAT credit - input services - advertisements for aerated waters - Held that: - the services in respect of which CENVAT credit was taken by the assessee during the period of dispute are within the ambit of the definition of ‘input service’ given under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently the demand raised on them by the lower authority by way of denial of input service tax credit has to be set aside - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (5) TMI 802
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption benefit to the appellant due to the use of a brand name belonging to another person on the goods manufactured by them. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of the law regarding brand names and trade names in relation to SSI exemption notifications.
Comprehensive Details:
Issue 1: Grounds for Adjournment
The application for adjournment was rejected by the Tribunal as no cogent ground was disclosed for unavailability of the Advocate for the respondents. The appeal related to a period from 1-6-1997 to 7-6-2002, and the Tribunal did not find it to be a fit case for adjournment.
Issue 2: Challenge to Commissioner's Order
The appellants challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-2-2005, which dismissed their appeal against the order passed by the adjudicating authority.
Issue 3: Initiation of Proceedings
The Additional Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated based on a show cause notice dated 1st July, 2002, alleging that the respondents were manufacturing goods using a brand name belonging to another person, thereby questioning their eligibility for SSI exemption.
Issue 4: Denial of SSI Exemption
The adjudicating authority held that the respondents, despite using the brand name 'SANT' of another person on their Pipe Fittings, cannot be denied the SSI exemption benefit as the brand name ownership differed for the goods manufactured by them compared to the brand owner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision citing relevant case law.
Issue 5: Allegations of Duty Evasion
The department alleged that the respondents evaded duty by wrongly availing SSI exemption benefit while using the brand name 'SANT' belonging to another entity on their Pipe Fittings. Seized goods and manufacturing details were presented as evidence.
Issue 6: Brand Name Registration
During the relevant period, the brand name 'Sant' was registered in favor of the respondents, but the registered brand name was 'Sant' and not 'SANT,' which was used by the respondents. The discrepancy in brand names was highlighted.
Issue 7: Disputed Interpretation of Law
The lower authorities were criticized for not considering the difference between the registered brand names and the brand name used on the goods seized. The appellant argued that the law laid down by the Apex Court was misconstrued in dismissing the appeal.
Issue 8: Contrary Rulings
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting SSI exemption based on the difference in products manufactured by the respondents and the brand owner. The Apex Court's interpretation of brand names for exemption eligibility was emphasized.
Issue 9: Brand Name Ownership
The findings of the lower authorities regarding brand name ownership were deemed contrary to the facts as the brand name 'SANT' was registered in favor of another entity during the relevant period.
Issue 10: Compliance with Notification Terms
The Apex Court's stance on strict compliance with notification terms for claiming benefits was highlighted, emphasizing that stretching or adding words to the notification for benefit is impermissible.
Issue 11: Penalty Imposition
The question of penalty imposition was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal did not find it necessary to discuss the issue further due to differing views and lack of clarity during the relevant period.
Issue 12: Tribunal's Decision
Based on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and confirmed the demand specified in the show cause notice, denying the SSI exemption benefit to the appellant.
Issue 13: Appeal Outcome
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the demand specified in the show cause notice was confirmed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2010 (5) TMI 801
Duty deposited before issuance of SCN – No finding has been recorded by authorities that assessee removed goods with intention to evade duty or with mens rea - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA Versus OMKAR STEEL TUBES (P) LTD [2007 (8) TMI 184 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - SLP dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 800
MODVAT credit - outdoor catering services - Held that: - service tax paid on the outdoor catering services by the canteen located in the factory premises is available as Modvat Credit to the assessee - the issue is no more res-integra and stand decided by the case of FERROMATIK MILACRON INDIA LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2008 (11) TMI 202 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service relating to business and cenvat credit in respect of the same will be admissible - credit allowed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (5) TMI 799
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of fair market value of the land.
2. Inclusion of solatium as part of the compensation for wealth tax.
3. Classification of the right to receive compensation as an asset u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act.
Summary:
1. Determination of Fair Market Value of the Land:
The High Court addressed the issue of determining the fair market value of the land for wealth tax purposes. The revenue argued that the sale instance dated 24-4-1998 of a small parcel of land should be used to determine the value. However, the court found this argument devoid of merit, stating that the market price determined by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act) was more relevant. The court held that the market price assessed by the Collector would represent the actual value/market price of the land for wealth tax purposes, as also concluded by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Inclusion of Solatium as Part of the Compensation:
The court examined whether solatium is part and parcel of the compensation to be included in the wealth of the assessee. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 11, the court held that solatium under section 23(2) of the L.A. Act forms part of the enhanced compensation and should be included in the wealth of the assessee. The impugned order was modified accordingly to include solatium as part of the compensation.
3. Classification of the Right to Receive Compensation as an Asset u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act:
The court addressed whether the mere right to receive enhanced compensation is an asset under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court concluded that after the land was acquired and vested in the State, the assessee did not remain its owner, and the mere right to receive enhanced compensation did not fall within the definition of assets u/s 2(ea). The court held that such a right could not be included in the wealth of the assessee. This view was supported by previous judgments, including Amrit Lal Jindal & Sons (HUF) v. WTO [2009] 184 Taxman 143.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly dismissed and partly allowed. The market price determined under the L.A. Act was upheld as the true value of the land for wealth tax purposes. Solatium was included as part of the compensation, while the right to receive enhanced compensation was not considered an asset u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act.
-
2010 (5) TMI 798
Whether the Higher Secondary school was to be sanctioned to the Appellant as per the old policy and the subsequent orders or in view of the new policy as per the G.O.(P)No.107/07/G.Edn dated 13.6.2007, which was produced by the Respondents before the High Court along with a memo, containing the norms for sanctioning new schools, courses etc?
-
2010 (5) TMI 797
Whether second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable basically on a substantial question of law and not on facts?
Whether the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence?
Whether landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent?
-
2010 (5) TMI 796
Whether on the admitted long cohabitation of the First defendant and Muthu Reddiar, a legal presumption of a lawful wedlock is not established?
Whether the specific case of prior and subsisting marriage between defendant and Alagarsami Reddiar set up by Plaintiff is established as required by law and she could have a preferential claim over defendants 1 to 3?
-
2010 (5) TMI 795
Whether the credit of duty paid on inputs and input services is admissible to the job workers clearing goods to the principal manufacturer under N/N. 214/86-CE and also clearing waste generated on payment of duty?
Held that: - the issue is covered by the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd. [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C - the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the decision of the Tribunal as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 865 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and did not follow the decision of Tribunal in case of M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd. Since the facts are same and issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd., the appeal filed the appellant is required to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (5) TMI 794
Issues involved: Disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) and disallowance of provision for property tax liability pending before Supreme Court.
Issue 1: Disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2):
The Revenue appealed against the allowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 63,64,547 by the ld. CIT (Appeals) without fulfilling the conditions specified for write off of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue failed to obtain approval from the High Power committee (COD) for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The absence of COD approval rendered the appeal un-admitted, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Collector of Central Excise. The decision emphasized the necessity of COD approval for litigations involving Government and Government undertakings to prevent wastage of public money and time. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of COD approval, allowing the Revenue to file a Misc. Petition upon obtaining the necessary permission.
Issue 2: Disallowance of provision for property tax liability pending before Supreme Court:
The Revenue contested the deletion of disallowances amounting to Rs. 7,74,359 on account of provision for property tax liability, which was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the absence of COD approval for the appeal led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal. The decision highlighted the importance of COD approval in litigations involving Government entities to maintain coordination and prevent frivolous disputes from burdening the courts. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the need for adherence to the COD approval process before pursuing legal actions, ensuring the efficient resolution of disputes and the preservation of public resources.
This judgment underscores the significance of obtaining COD approval for litigations involving Government entities, as mandated by legal precedents and principles of efficient dispute resolution. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of COD approval serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements essential for pursuing legal actions in cases involving public sector undertakings.
-
2010 (5) TMI 793
Issues: Challenge to order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissing appeal of auction purchaser, legality of confirmation of auction sale, duty of Recovery Officer, collusion between parties, higher offer made after auction.
Summary:
1. The petition challenged the DRAT's order dismissing the appeal of the auction purchaser regarding the auction conducted for properties of the borrower. The DRAT's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that interference is only warranted in cases of clear illegality and grave injustice.
2. The DRAT's order highlighted the duty of the Recovery Officer to ensure the best price in auction proceedings. Legal principles dictate that a confirmed sale can be set aside if a higher offer is available before confirmation. The court cited relevant judgments emphasizing the importance of obtaining the most remunerative price in auctions.
3. The DRAT concluded that the auction purchaser does not have an inherent right to confirmation of sale if a higher offer is available before confirmation. In this case, there was collusion between the auction purchaser and the officer of the Financial Institution, resulting in a substantial amount not being considered. The respondent's increased offer was not matched by the petitioners.
4. The High Court agreed with the DRAT's findings, emphasizing the fiduciary duty of the Recovery Officer and the possibility of setting aside a confirmed sale. The petitioners' argument of entitlement to confirmation based on being the highest bidders was rejected.
5. The petitioners' claim of equity due to construction on the plots was refuted, as they were deemed trespassers on the auctioned properties. The court noted that the petitioners had no legal possession of the properties and constructed at their own risk.
6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' lack of legal possession and the failure to match the higher offer were crucial factors in the decision.
-
2010 (5) TMI 792
Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of carried forward depreciation u/s 115JB.
2. Application of provisions of Section 115JB on a Sick Company registered with BIFR.
3. Adjustment of extraordinary items against unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss.
4. Set off of brought forward book loss and unabsorbed depreciation against book profit.
5. Disallowance of business loss on account of write-off of advance given for business purposes.
6. Allowance of loss as trading/business loss u/s 28 or as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii).
7. Disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 16,12,886.
8. Charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C.
Summary:
Issue 1: Allowance of Carried Forward Depreciation u/s 115JB
The Revenue's appeal contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the benefit of carried forward depreciation of Rs. 6,00,23,859 while calculating income u/s 115JB. The Tribunal held that the profit of the sick industrial undertaking should be excluded from the book profit for the year under consideration, making the book profit nil. Consequently, the Revenue's ground became infructuous and was rejected.
Issue 2: Application of Provisions of Section 115JB on a Sick Company Registered with BIFR
The assessee argued that as per Section 115JB Explanation 1(vii), the profit of a sick industrial company should be excluded while computing book profit. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the exemption is available up to the year the net worth exceeds accumulated losses. For the year under consideration, the profit of the sick industrial undertaking was to be excluded, making the book profit nil.
Issue 3: Adjustment of Extraordinary Items Against Unabsorbed Depreciation and Brought Forward Business Loss
The Tribunal found that since the profit of the sick industrial undertaking was not chargeable to tax u/s 115JB, the book profit was nil. Thus, the grounds related to the computation of book profit became infructuous and were rejected.
Issue 4: Set Off of Brought Forward Book Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation Against Book Profit
Similar to Issue 3, the Tribunal concluded that the book profit was nil, rendering the grounds related to set off of losses and depreciation infructuous and rejected.
Issue 5: Disallowance of Business Loss on Account of Write-Off of Advance Given for Business Purposes
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 52,18,507 as bad debt. The AO disallowed it, stating the conditions u/s 36(2) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the claim for Rs. 19,30,259 related to Steel Authority of India Ltd. but disallowed the rest as capital loss. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for re-examination.
Issue 6: Allowance of Loss as Trading/Business Loss u/s 28 or as Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii)
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the facts regarding advances given to Ganpati Capitals Ltd. and Gujarat Nippon Bimetals Pvt. Ltd. and re-adjudicate the issue in accordance with the law.
Issue 7: Disallowance of Depreciation Amounting to Rs. 16,12,886
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by a previous ITAT decision, which held that waiver of loan does not reduce the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes. The AO was directed to allow depreciation on the WDV as brought forward from the earlier year.
Issue 8: Charging of Interest u/s 234B & 234C
The Tribunal held that the charging of interest is consequential and directed the AO to recompute the interest, if any, after determining the income as per the Tribunal's order.
Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced in open court on 14th May 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 791
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the rejection of drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, the dispute over the correct amount of drawback claimed by the exporter, and the interpretation of Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996 regarding re-imported goods and customs duties.
Rejection of Drawback Claim under Section 74:
The exporter, after re-exporting a consignment of Dye intermediate, claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The initial drawback claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, leading to a series of appeals and revisions. The Revisionary Authority sanctioned a drawback amount, but the exporter contested it, claiming a higher amount. The exporter's subsequent appeals were rejected on grounds of delay and lack of merit. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in the process.
Dispute Over Correct Drawback Amount:
The exporter contested the drawback amount paid to them, claiming they were entitled to a higher sum and requested the differential amount along with interest. Despite departmental communication affirming the correctness of the paid amount, the exporter persisted in their claim. The appellate authority rejected the exporter's appeal on grounds of delay, leading to a revision application and subsequent remand for a decision on merits.
Interpretation of Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996:
The Central Government, after careful consideration, analyzed the re-importation of goods by the exporter under Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996. The exporter claimed benefits under this notification and paid only a part of the Customs duty. The dispute arose regarding the entitlement to a recovered drawback amount, with the exporter asserting it as Customs Duties eligible for fresh drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government's interpretation aligned with the statute and relevant clarifications, concluding that the exporter was entitled to the claimed drawback amount based on the plain reading of the statute and circulars.
-
2010 (5) TMI 790
Issues involved:
1. Supplementary claim for drawback filed by the appellant.
2. Classification of goods for the purpose of granting drawback.
3. Interpretation of General Rules for classification of goods.
4. Application of General Note 13 of the General Notes for Drawback rates.
5. Consideration of recent Board decision on classification and rate of drawback for mixed composition goods.
6. Decision on the revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a supplementary claim for the release of the balance amount of Drawback for specific shipping bills. The claim was within the condonation period, as the original processing amount was found to be low. The lower authority directed processing the supplementary claim based on the net content of constituent materials at the applicable Drawback rate. The appellant appealed this decision before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who rejected the appeal.
2. The appellant contended that the goods exported should be classified under Tariff Item 3918909002 for claiming Drawback. They argued that the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff should be referred to for classification. The appellant emphasized Rule 2(b) and Rule 3(b) for goods consisting of multiple materials and composite goods, respectively.
3. The appellant's interpretation of the General Rules for classification was based on the essential character of the goods and specific descriptions. They argued that Note 13 of the General Notes was not applicable in this case. They also cited a recent Board decision on the classification and rate of drawback for goods with mixed compositions to support their claim.
4. During the personal hearing, the appellant reiterated their position that the export item should be classified as Polypropylene mats under the relevant Drawback Schedule. The Department argued that the item exported was a composite product and eligible for drawback under a specific category.
5. The Central Government reviewed the case records, orders, relevant Acts/Rules, and notifications. They considered the discrepancy in descriptions of the goods and the constituents of the exported item, which led to the classification issue.
6. The Government opined that the Drawback scheme is a specific compensating scheme for individual export products, and its applicability should be decided within the specified parameters. They emphasized that the description of goods in the Schedule should align with the Customs Tariff Act and General Note 13 for composite articles. The Government rejected the appellant's arguments for classification based on allied Acts/Rules, as it would undermine the specific Rules of Drawback.
In conclusion, the Government found no merit in the appellant's revision application and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ultimately rejecting the revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2010 (5) TMI 789
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 regarding Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted goods.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute where both sides suggested that resolving the issue in line with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 would be appropriate. The appellant's counsel argued that the case falls under sub-section (4) of Section 73 and should be governed by sub-section (2) of the same section. The appellant had already reversed the credit, but to proceed with the examination process, the matter needed to be referred back to the Adjudicating Authority to satisfy the requirements of the Finance Act, 2010.
Considering the submissions, the Tribunal decided to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement and dispose of the appeal in light of the retrospective application of law by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing exempted goods afresh. It was determined that if the appellant submits an application under sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Finance Act, 2010 with all necessary details, the Adjudicating Authority should re-examine the matter and issue an appropriate order, taking into account the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. The Tribunal aimed to ensure a fair opportunity for the appellant by sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh examination and a decision in line with the law enacted by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010.
As a result, the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the application from the appellant and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 788
Issues:
- Dispute regarding exemption of duty on Mono Ethlylene Glycol (MEG) used in the manufacture of Polyester staple fiber (PSF) under Notification No. 225/86-C.E.
- Admissibility of set off of duty on MEG for PSF cleared without payment of duty under Rule 191BB for export.
- Denial of set off on MEG contained in waste and by-products.
- Disallowance of set off on MEG used in the manufacture of PSF cleared at nil rate of duty.
- Alleged short receipt of MEG and denial of set off amounting to &8377; 6,50,090.
Analysis:
1. The dispute revolves around the applicability of Notification No. 225/86-C.E. exempting PSF from duty based on duty paid on MEG used in its manufacture. The issue arises when PSF is cleared without duty for export under Rule 191BB. The Tribunal has previously held that such clearances are not exempted goods, allowing the benefit of the notification. The department's acceptance of duty-free clearances for export under bond implies eligibility for the exemption under Rule 191BB.
2. The Notification operates similarly to the Modvat scheme, allowing credit for specified duty on inputs towards finished products for export. Previous judgments have upheld this principle, extending the benefit to clearances under bond without payment of duty. The Tribunal's decision aligns with this interpretation, emphasizing consistency in applying the exemption to duty-free clearances under Rule 191B.
3. Regarding the alleged short receipt of MEG, the Commissioner (Appeals) found discrepancies in the department's claims, highlighting excess receipts under other bills of entry. The lack of challenge or explanation by the department led to upholding the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the impugned order.
Overall, the Tribunal's decision confirms the admissibility of duty exemption under Notification No. 225/86-C.E. for MEG used in PSF manufacture, even for clearances without payment of duty under Rule 191BB. The judgment emphasizes consistency in applying exemption provisions and requires proper justification for challenging findings on alleged discrepancies in input receipt.
-
2010 (5) TMI 787
Issues involved: Determination of whether separate enterprises can be treated as independent units for the levy of excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether Kandhar Separators Industries, Jeet Enterprises, and Hi-Tech Electronics Industries could be considered independent units for excise duty purposes.
The investigation revealed that these units, along with Kandhari Radio Corporation, were involved in manufacturing and sale of accumulators. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were manufactured in a common factory premises by Kandhari Radio Corporation, entitling them to exemption benefits. However, M/s. Hi-Tech Electronics Industries were considered separate and independent units by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act in determining the manufacturer.
Section 2(f) defines "manufacture" and "manufacturer," stating that even the use of machinery owned by others qualifies a person as a manufacturer. The adjudicating authority observed that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied, as the units formed by Shri Avtar Singh were trying to evade duty by seeking exemption benefits. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting exemption based solely on machinery ownership without sufficient evidence of production by only one unit.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Additional Commissioner's order regarding independent production by each unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the penalty and granting exemption beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appeals filed by M/s. Hi-Tech Electronics Industries and Shri Avtar Singh were dismissed, and the department's appeals succeeded, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and restoring the adjudicating authority's decision.
-
2010 (5) TMI 786
Issues Involved:
1. Conscious possession of gold.
2. Interpretation of possession under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
3. Distinction between adjudication and criminal proceedings.
4. Legality of confiscation of gold.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conscious Possession of Gold
The primary issue was whether the respondent was in "conscious possession" of the gold recovered from his premises. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not in conscious possession of the gold slabs and rods, as they were allegedly kept by his mother who had died in 1946. The Tribunal relied on the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), who had acquitted the respondent on the grounds that he was not in conscious possession of the gold.
2. Interpretation of Possession under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968
The second issue was whether possession under Section 8 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, meant conscious possession. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble High Court's judgment, which clarified that possession under the Act indeed meant conscious possession. The High Court's judgment, in paragraph 20, stated: "The legal position is no more res integra that 'possession of gold' in contravention of 1968 Act means 'conscious possession'."
3. Distinction Between Adjudication and Criminal Proceedings
The third issue involved the distinction between adjudication proceedings under Section 71(1) and criminal proceedings under Section 85(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Tribunal acknowledged that the standards of proof in adjudication and criminal proceedings are different. The former requires a preponderance of probability, while the latter requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal, however, found no reason to disagree with the CJM's findings, which were based on the higher standard of proof required in criminal proceedings.
4. Legality of Confiscation of Gold
The fourth issue was whether the gold slabs and rods were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal had to consider whether the confiscation was justified under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Tribunal noted that the CJM had acquitted the respondent, and thus, it was improper to allow the confiscation order to stand against the findings of the Criminal Court. The Tribunal also referred to the High Court's guidelines in paragraph 18, which laid down criteria for the departmental authority to follow the findings recorded by the Criminal Court.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that the first and second questions raised by the applicant were either questions of fact or already settled by the High Court. However, the third question was reframed and referred to the Hon'ble High Court for clarity on whether the Tribunal followed the criteria laid down by the High Court in its remand order. The Tribunal allowed the reference application to the extent of the reframed third question and directed the Asstt. Registrar to send certified copies of relevant documents to the Registrar of the Hon'ble High Court for necessary follow-up action.
(Pronounced in court)
-
2010 (5) TMI 785
Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of loss claimed due to misappropriation of cash/shares by the accountant. 2. Determination of long-term capital gain on the sale of a Delhi Stock Exchange membership card. 3. Computation of capital gain on the sale of house property. Summary:1. Disallowance of Loss Claimed Due to Misappropriation of Cash/Shares by the Accountant:The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of Rs. 21,40,390/- claimed as a loss due to misappropriation by the accountant, Shri Sandeep Gupta. The AO disallowed the claim, stating the matter was sub judice. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, citing lack of details, timing of the loss, and that the loss did not constitute a business debt u/s 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2). The Tribunal initially set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh consideration. Upon re-examination, the CIT(A) again disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal found the loss to be allowable as it occurred in the course of business and directed the AO to allow the claim, with the condition that any recovery from the insurance company should be taxed in the relevant year. 2. Determination of Long-Term Capital Gain on Sale of Delhi Stock Exchange Membership Card:The assessee declared a capital gain of Rs. 8.14 lacs on the sale of a stock exchange membership card, taking the cost of acquisition as Rs. 6 lacs as on 1.4.81. The AO accepted this, but the CIT(A) reduced the cost of acquisition to Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh consideration. Upon re-examination, the CIT(A) maintained the cost of acquisition at Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal, however, directed the AO to adopt a reasonable fair market value of Rs. 4 lacs as on 1.4.81 and an additional Rs. 2 lacs paid on 17.12.1990 as the cost of improvement, and compute the indexed cost of acquisition accordingly. 3. Computation of Capital Gain on Sale of House Property:The assessee sold house No.S-302, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi, and declared a capital gain based on a fair market value of Rs. 13,82,000/- as on 1.4.1981. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's valuation and directed the AO to compute the capital gain accordingly. The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54 was also accepted. Thus, this issue was resolved in favor of the assessee and was not a matter of further consideration in this appeal. Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the AO to allow the loss due to misappropriation and to recompute the capital gain on the sale of the stock exchange membership card based on the revised cost of acquisition and improvement.
............
|
9911796707
