|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1721 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1563 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CUTTACK BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor committed default in paying financial debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is clear that once it is shown that matter was referred to RBI and the proceeding is filed as per instructions of the RBI then it has to be seen whether such instructions were issued by RBI in compliance with section 35AA of Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Whether initiation of this proceeding against the Corporate Debtor is independent or it was as the RBI instructions contented in letter dated 28.08.2017? - HELD THAT:- This proceeding Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, is filed against Corporate Debtor by SBI, is not filed independently but it is filed as per instructions of the RBI as contemplated Under Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
The SBI has initiated this proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, against the Corporate Debtor on the basis of RBI directions dated 28.08.2017. Circular date 28.08.2017 is also on record at Page 142. RBI has directed State Bank of India to initiate proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, against some of the defaulters including the Corporate Debtor - It appears from evidence on record that this proceeding is initiated by the State Bank of India against the Corporate Debtor as per instructions of the RBI. Hence, this proceeding Under Section 7 of IBC appears to be not maintainable.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1562 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , GUWAHATI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- All the requirements to be meted out under Sub Section 3 of Section 7 of the Code have been complied with by the FC. The loan sanction letters (Annexure l-L and l-M) along with acknowledgement of liability/debt dated 03-02-2016 (Annexure l-AX and l-AY) prove that the amount claimed by the FC is still due. In order to prove that the CO has committed default, the FC has produced CIBIL report (Annexure l-AAB) and copies if statement of bank account (Annexure l-AZ-1 & l-AZ-2). To prove that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional, the applicant/FC has also produced Form -2 [Annexure II and II (a)]. Reference to Form-2 proves that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional.
All the information required for maintaining an application filed under Section 7 of the Code are meted out by the FC. Though, the FC is a member of the consortium banks lent money to the CD, consent of the joint lenders in filing an application of this nature by the members of the consortium banks is not at all a requirement to be meted out in a case of this nature. The FC being succeeded in proving all elements required to admit the application of this nature, this application deserves to be allowed.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1561 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
Exclusion of 2 days from the statutory period of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor - Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is stated that the aforesaid period of 2 (Two) days may be excluded from the CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor as the said Two days' period is on account of the time elapsed between the date Of passing of the Admission Order and the" actual date on which the IRP received a copy of the said Order and took control of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor.
We are inclined to exclude 2 (Two) days from the statutory period of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor - Application allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1560 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest on delayed payment of duty - respondent’s contention is that the petitioner is liable to pay interest as per the rates applicable from time to time with effect from 12-9-1995 on the belated payment of duty - HELD THAT:- The petitioner paid duty, but they have not paid interest. Subsequently, when the matter was tested before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the petition filed by the petitioner and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the tarpaulin made-ups would not amount to manufacture, since the process does not bring into existence a new and distinct product with total transformation in original commodity and hence, the question of levying Excise Duty and consequently, claiming interest under Section 11AA of the Act is not acceptable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1559 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
Withdrawal of application - Prayer to recall the order - section 9 of the IB Code - HELD THAT:- On filing of the instant application notice was issued to the IRP. The IRP appeared through its conducting lawyer and stated that in view of his appointment he has issued notice for convening the meeting of COC and further submitted that he has no objection provided his dues are cleared and submitted that approximately ₹ 8 lacs have been spent by the IRP. However, in support of such contention no documents and/or payment receipt or any invoice filed in respect of the expenditure incurred. Since, party has settled mutually, I found no reason to reject the petition so filed by the petitioner jointly for withdrawal of the application at this stage relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swiss Ribbons vs. Union of India [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT].
Application allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1558 - ITAT GAUHATI
Miscellaneous application filed u/s 254(2) - HELD THAT:- After arguing the same the Revenue’s instant misc. application vehemently for sometimes, learned counsel of the department seek to withdraw the same with liberty to file it again with better particulars and in compliance of the necessary procedure. Revenue’s misc. application is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1557 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
Exclusion of period of stay of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana - Section 18 and 60 (5) (c) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble High Court of Telangana passed interim stay of all further proceedings including appointment of IRP by order dated 06.12.2018. It is the case of IRP, had there been no stay, CIRP of 180 days will come to end on 02.06.2019. The contention of IRP that he has to commence CIRP afresh after exclusion of the period during which stay was in force from the CIRP period of 180 days. It is the case of IRP, Hon'ble High of Telangana disposed of CRP No.7229 & 7230 on 01.05.2019. Therefore, stay is deemed to have been vacated by order of dismissal of CRP No. 7229 & 7230 of 2018.
Hon'ble NCLAT held in the matter of QUINN LOGISTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS MACK SOFT TECH PVT. LTD., MOHD. SABIR PARVEZ AND MR. M.L. JAIN, (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) [2018 (6) TMI 904 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] held that in certain cases some period to be excluded from CIRP - One of the grounds mentioned for exclusion is that when CIRP is stayed by a court of law, Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal or Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Relying on the decision of Hon'ble NCLAT, the period during which stay was in force i.e from 06.12.2018 to 01.05.2019 i.e. till the date of order is to be excluded from the CIRP and IRP is directed to commence the CIRP against Corporate Debtor as per provisions of IBC and Regulations thereon. The period of 148 days is to be excluded for the purpose of computation of 180 days. This period of 148 days is to be added to the CIRP wef 11.06.2019.
The Application is allowed excluding the period of stay i.e, 148 days for the purpose of computation of 180 days of CIRP and IRP is further directed to proceed according to the provisions of the Code and Regulations thereon with effect from 11.06.2019 - Application disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1556 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Exclusion of 210 days for the purpose of calculation of CIRP period - HELD THAT:- Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case i.e. litigation pertaining to the assets of the Corporate Debtor is still going on due to which a resolution plan could not be obtained by the Resolution Professional, natural justice demands to give more time to make an attempt to invite an acceptable resolution plan. Side by side, the RP shall also try to resolve with the Societies a workable solution so that the grievance of the Home Buyers be redressed. However, it is expected that the Ld. RP shall expeditiously comply with the directions.
It is hereby held that the period of 210 days cannot be allowed and the same is hereby restricted to 150 days, because sufficient time had already been granted for completion of the insolvency process. This Application (MA 1616/2019) is partly allowed to be operative retrospectively w.e.f. 28.04.2019 for the purpose of calculation of 150 days as curtailed by this order. The Resolution Professional shall complete the process as early as possible and inform the progress on the next date of hearing, listed for 22.07.2019.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1555 - ITAT CHENNAI
Unabsorbed loss of 10A/10B Units set off against other incomes - Whether CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction u/s.10A to be allowed without considering the carry forward of loss - HELD THAT:- As decided by CIT-A relying on M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] The provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday.
The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter VI of the Act can be understand by acknowledging that any such reference or mention would have been a repetition of what has already been provided in Section 10A. The provisions of Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act providing for somewhat similar deductions would be wholly irrelevant and redundant if deductions under Section 10A were to be made at the stage of operation of Chapter VI of the Act. The retention of the said provisions of the Act i.e. Section 80HHC and 80HHE, despite the amendment of Section 10A, in our view, indicates that some additional benefits to eligible Section 10A units, not contemplated by Sections 80HHC and 80HHE, was intended by the legislature. Such a benefit can only be understood by a legislative mandate to understand that the stages for working out the deductions under Section 10A and 80HHC and 80HHE are substantially different. This is the next aspect of the case which we would now like to turn to - Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1554 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Maintenance of status quo in relation to shareholding and directorship of Respondent No. 1 Company - HELD THAT:- We are not persuaded to accept the submissions made by Mr. Virendra Ganda, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-respondents that the prevailing arrangements be permitted to continue i.e. to allow the applicant-respondents to run the hotel and to permit the non applicant-petitioners to run the restaurant in the basement. There is nothing on the record brought to our notice to that effect either in form of a resolution of the Respondent No. 1 Company or any such statutory arrangements. The other submission based on the Settlement Agreement dated 18.12.2014 has also failed to impress us because firstly, the Settlement Agreement dated 18.12.2014 has not been signed by non applicant-petitioner No. 1 and more importantly it is a transaction between two individuals which does not involve the body corporate- Respondent No. 1 Company. There are detailed provisions made under Sections 56 to 59 of the Act for transfer of share before alteration in the shareholding in a body corporate could be accepted. It requires a resolution of the Board of Directors, Transfer deed and due intimation to Registrar of Companies by uploading of MCA Website. There is nothing on the record to show that any steps were taken to enter the names of transferee shareholder in the place of non applicant-petitioners.
EOGM may be convened as per the requisition and it may proceed according to the agenda. Any decision taken in the EOGM shall not be given effect as the main matter is posted for hearing on 03.09.2019. In the meanwhile, the decision taken in the EOGM be also placed on record.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1553 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The shareholders of the applicant companies are the best Judges of their interest, fully conversant with market trends, and therefore, their decision should not be interfered with by Tribunal for the reason that it is not a part of judicial function to examine entrepreneurial activities and their commercial decisions. It is well settled that the Tribunal evaluating the Scheme of which sanction is sought under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act of 2013 will not ordinarily interfere with the corporate decisions of companies as approved by shareholders and creditors - Right to apply for the sanction of the Scheme has been statutorily provided under Section 230-234 of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore, it is open to the applicant companies to avail the benefits extended by statutory provisions and the Rules.
It has also been affirmed in the petition that the Scheme is in the interest of the transferor companies and the transferee company including their shareholders, creditors, employees and all concerned - upon considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of all the Petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme, and the affidavits filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs including the report of official liquidator, and also as no objection from any quarter against the Scheme has been received; there appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme.
Sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Application allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1552 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Approval of Resolution Plan - direction against the RP to place its revised Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The CoC has approved the Resolution Plan because the successful Resolution Applicant has assured payment to the stakeholders within fifteen days, to clear statutory dues within 96 hours after the approval of the Plan by simultaneously showing proof of source of funds. The Resolution Applicant tendered documents showing Fixed Deposit of ₹ 6 Crores at the time of the approval of resolution plan by CoC, now it has stepped up its Fixed Deposits to ₹ 8 Crores. Apart from this, the successful Resolution Applicant has also filed sanction letter from HDFC Bank to finance ₹ 10 Crores for infusing funds into the Corporate Debtor towards working capital. The total money that this Resolution Applicant proposed to invest in this company is around ₹ 18 Crores, out of which, ₹ 9.52 Crores to pay to various stake holders within 15 days and remaining money to be invested as working capital.
In respect to this unsuccessful bidder Plan is concerned, it's a plan not supported by any material reflecting it has cash or security supported to make payments to the stake holders or to invest working capital into the company, whereby this Bench hereby partly allowed the MA filed by the RP by approving the resolution plan approved by the CoC without passing any relief to waive off various dues that are payable by the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law, however we make it clear that it is left open to the Corporate Debtor to pursue its remedies in accordance with law
Application dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1551 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP adjustment u/s. 92CA(4) - international transactions entered with the Associated Enterprise (AE) - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- TPO has done fresh search process in applying his own filter and came up with twenty one comparables. Out of these nine comparables were rejected without giving any reason whatsoever. We agree with assessee that this act of the TPO is classical act of cherry picking. There is no justification whatsoever as to why nine of the comparables selected by the TPO himself by applying filters selected by him only should be rejected. Hence, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A), wherein nine comparables were directed to be included in comparable search.
As regards direction of learned CIT(A) that company namely ‘Nittany Outsourcing Limited’ came out of the same re-run of the search process is also acceptable.
CIT(A) has directed that the TPO did not expressly reject the company ‘Crisil Marketwire Limited’ which appeared as comparable company in set of comparables in assessee’s transfer pricing study and hence he also directed this should be included in comparables. This direction of learned CIT(A) in our considered opinion is not sustainable. When learned CIT(A) is accepting that search process of twenty one comparables selected by the TPO should be adopted, then learned CIT(A) again cannot blow hot and cold and insist that one of the comparable appearing in the assessee’s original transfer pricing study should be included. This act in fact, is cherry picking by learned CIT(A) himself and the same is not sustainable.
CIT(A) to disregard five of the comparables coming out of TPO’s fresh search process - We note that learned Counsel of the assessee has not made any argument in support. Learned Counsel of the assessee only confined his argument about the rejection of nine comparables and cherry picking done by the TPO. Accordingly, we direct that comparable analysis should be done on the basis of twenty one companies selected by the TPO and one more added by learned CIT(A) namely ‘Nittany Outsourcing Limited’. Marketing support adjustment of 2.30% may also be granted.
Addition on account of advance received by the assessee from its holding company treated as ‘income’ - HELD THAT:- As relying on case [2012 (4) TMI 120 - ITAT MUMBAI] we find during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has given a statement that it has received advance towards market research analysis services rendered during the year. Therefore, the details given in the balance sheet and the submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings are contradictory to each other. Neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has gone into this aspect. Therefore, when it was proposed that the issue needs verification at the level of the AO, both the parties fairly agreed that they have no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO - restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the nature of advance received, its purpose and utilization and how the same has subsequently been adjusted from the bills raised by the assessee. Ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
TP adjustment being notional interest on export receivable by the assessee from its AE - HELD THAT:- t this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in as much as no interest is charged in respect of outstanding receivable from AE as well as non-AE. Hence, there cannot be any occasion to make arm’s length price adjustment for notional interest in this regard - in the case of CIT Vs. Indo American Jewellery Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 804 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held in this decision that where there was complete uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both AE and non-AE debtors for delay in realisation of export proceeds, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of notional interest on outstanding amount of export proceeds. Citing above said decision, learned counsel stated that this decision is squarely applicable in this case as the assessee has not charged interest from non-AEs also, adjustment made by the TPO is not sustainable. DR not make any rebuttal in this regard. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1550 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is no default as on date, as the Respondent has discharged its liabilities by paying the Applicant in various instalments as stated supra. It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code can be invoked only in the case of existence of a 'default' and non-payment of such default by the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, the Corporate Debtor has also replied denying the liability, by inter alia, contending that they have discharged their liabilities and there is no such debt due. Therefore, it is'not a fit case to admit the case, and thus it is liable to be rejected.
Application dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1549 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
Maintainability of Settlement Application - Rectification of certain error - applicant has finally submitted that the O-I-O had been issued on 22-2-2019 and that they had filed the settlement application prior to that and therefore the application is maintainable and not hit by provisions of Section 32(1) read with Section 31(c) of the Act - HELD THAT:- A plain perusal of Section 32E of CEA reveals that for the purposes of settlement, the case must be pending before an adjudicating authority as on the date of Application under Section 32E(1) of the Act and no application under Section 32E(1) can be made unless the conditions of the Proviso clauses (a) to (d) thereof, are complied with. Further, while the statute gives some discretion to the Bench in respect of condition (a), there is no discretion in respect of other conditions.
The initial applications being violative of condition (d) was statutorily defective and could not have been treated as an application in strict legal sense, as the language used in the statute is that - ‘no such application shall be made unless’. The applicants resubmitted the applications after rectifying the defects and was received by the Commission Registry on 11-6-2019. Thus, on the face of it, the date of application has to be reckoned as the date of receipt of the valid application duly complying with the requirement of the law stipulated in Section 32E(1) of the Act. Otherwise, there will be a clear violation of the language of the law as stipulated in Section 32E(1) ibid. If the applicants’ argument that the date of the earlier defective application be treated as the date of filing of applications in the instant case is accepted then clearly it would be contrary to the mandate of the law that ‘no such application shall be made unless’ . Thus, the earlier invalid/defective application cannot be legally accepted as the application having been made under Section 32E(1) of the Act.
The Bench holds that in the instant case the date of receipt of application is that date on which valid applications complying with the law were received, i.e., 11-6-2019. However, on the said date, the impugned SCN stood adjudicated vide O-in-O, dated 20-2-2019; hence, it was no more a ‘case’ that could be settled. The definition of ‘case’ under Section 31 of the Act, clearly stipulates that the proceeding has to be pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application under Section 32E(1) of the Act is made.
Applications under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is rejected, as not maintainable and cannot be allowed to be proceeded with.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1548 - ITAT PUNE
Non deduction of TDS u/s.194C - payments made by assessee joint venture to its members - assessee is an AOP engaged in the activity of civil contractors - HELD THAT:- Structures of section 40(a)(ia) are diluted in the facts of the case since the payee has admittedly filed its return of income disclosing the impugned receipts and income earned by it embedded in the receipt has been duly offered for taxation. Assessee Joint Venture cannot be treated as assessee in default in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Chandrakant J. Mandale [2015 (4) TMI 1140 - ITAT PUNE] for the assessment year 2008-09 decided on 10.04.2015, the assesee joint venture cannot be treated as assessee “in default".
Reverting to the arguments put forth by the Ld. DR regarding distinguishable aspects of the case so far as the facts are concerned, we have perused the orders carefully in the earlier assessment years in assessee‟s own case and the facts are similar in its entirety. We, however, appreciate that on principle; the Ld. DR had fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the decision in assessee‟s own case. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1547 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Smuggling - truck loaded with large Cardamom - foreign origin goods or not - Confiscation - penalties - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, large Cardamom is not a notified item in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act. As such, the onus to prove that the same have been smuggled lies upon the Revenue and is required to be discharged by production of sufficient and positive evidence. Merely based upon the trade opinion indicating the goods to be a foreign origin is not sufficient especially when the appellants have produced the purchase ledger showing the purchase of the same from local person located in India. Even if the trade opinion is accepted, which in any case cannot be considered to be an expert opinion, the fact that the Cardamom may be of foreign origin by itself is not sufficient to hold the same as of smuggled nature.
For holding the goods as smuggled, Revenue is expected to produce the evidence to that effect. Revenue in their present appeal has not advanced any evidence to show that the Cardamom in question was smuggled - there are no justification to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1546 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of Customs Duty - electricity removed from SEZ to DTA or non-processing areas of SEZ - Validity of Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010 as well as Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench did not deem it fit to correct the judgment in the manner suggested, and to grant the wider relief that had been prayed for in the petition but restricted the period to 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010. The petitioners have thereafter thought it fit to accept the decision as it is, and did not file any review application, nor did they challenge the decision to the extent the relief prayed for has not been granted. Therefore, though the Court had discussed various issues and given findings thereon in the body of the judgment, it did not think it fit to grant any consequential relief, which appears to be a conscious decision as the Court has not entertained the Note for Speaking to the Minutes filed by the petitioners pointing out this fact.
The Division Bench, in the earlier decision has consciously restricted the relief granted to the petitioners to the period from 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010 for the reason that while holding in favour of the petitioners the Division Bench (in paragraph 23 of the judgment) was of the view that the provisions of Rule 47(3) of the SEZ Rules are designed to align the power plants located within SEZ to be at par with power plants located outside SEZ, both being located within India. Just as MPP imports or procures capital goods without payment of duty, but pays customs duty or excise duty, on the raw material and consumables used to generate electricity so also MPP located within SEZ imports or procures capital goods without payment of duty on raw materials and consumables to the extent the electricity generated by it is removed/supplied/sold outside SEZ.
With effect from 6-9-2010, the petitioners were no longer liable to pay duty on raw materials and inputs. Therefore, if the petitioners do not pay the duty to the extent specified in the Notification No. 91/2010, dated 6-9-2010 and subsequent notifications, the petitioners would be enjoying double benefits of not paying duty on raw materials and inputs and also not paying any customs duty on removal of electricity from the SEZ to DTA. It appears that therefore, the Division Bench has restricted the relief to the period up till 6-9-2010, as granting relief beyond that period would amount to entitling the petitioners to double benefit of exemption from payment of duty on raw materials and inputs and exemption from payment of customs duty.
Notification No. 9/2016-Cus., dated 16-2-2016 - HELD THAT:- The said notification stands on a different footing than the other notifications. In this notification, there is no general exemption in respect of goods falling under Tariff Item 2716 00 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule. Under this notification, different rates are provided for goods falling under Tariff Item 2716 00 00 and it is only in respect of electrical energy originating from Nepal and Bhutan that the standard rate (paisa per KWh) is nil. Thus, it is not as if import of electrical energy per se has been exempted from the whole of the customs duty leviable thereon. This notification is country specific and the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of exemption granted to import from those countries.
The question of directing the appropriate authority to refund the amount collected on account of duty on electricity removed from SEZ to DTA does not arise - Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1545 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
Issuance of witness summons - applicant submitted that the said documents were furnished to the Applicant on 01.11.2018 and on the same day the argument was commenced without giving time to scrutinize the documents by the Applicant - HELD THAT:- A discretion is conferred on the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure and be guided by the principles of natural justice.
It is considered just and necessary that evidence should be led to ascertain the authenticity of the documents produced vide IA No. 390/2018. Establishing the authenticity of these documents is vital to the determination of the issues raised in the two company petitions.
Since the NCLT empowered under section 424(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule (39)(1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to deal with the matter of taking evidences, This Tribunal has not dealt with the case laws quoted by the parties - Put up the matter on 30.08.2019.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1544 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Valuation of imported goods - Pig Iron - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based on the data available with the NIDB - whether the invoice value can be rejected and the duty can be charged as per NIDB data without any specific evidence that the invoice values do not reflect actual transaction value? - HELD THAT:- Relying on the decisions in the cases of Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. CC (Import-Seaport) Chennai [2015 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI], CC New Delhi v. Nath International [2013 (12) TMI 1042 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], Impex Steel & Bearing Co. v. CC Delhi-IV [2014 (2) TMI 627 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC Mumbai [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] it has been decided that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
