|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1237 Records
-
2014 (3) TMI 1059
Blocking access to the website for issue of statutory ‘C’ declaration forms online - Indisputably, interstate transactions covered by a certificate in Form-C, issued under Rule 9 of the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957, entitles the assessee to claim confessional rate of tax. The petitioner, therefore, applied for ‘C’ declaration forms to certify the sales under which they purchased from various suppliers. If ‘C’ declaration forms are not issued, they shall be liable to pay tax without availing concession. The question, therefore, is when a purchaser is in arrears of tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh, can he be denied the ‘C’ declaration forms to enable the dealer to certify the sales? The issue appears to be no more res integra.
Held that:- The learned Special Government Pleader has not brought to our notice any provision in the VAT Act or the C.S.T. Act, 1956, which empowers denial of ‘C’ declaration forms to the petitioner. Thus, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to supply the ‘C’ form declarations. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of tax arrears, if any. - Decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1058
Entitlement to claim deduction u/s.80P - Held that:- After comparative analysis of the ‘co-operative banks’ and ‘co-operative societies’ on various parameters held that the activities of both the organizations and the compliances to be made under various Acts for both the organizations are varied. The sub-section 4 to section 80P is applicable only to co-operative banks and not to credit co-operative societies.
The Revenue has tried to establish that the assessee although a credit co-operative society is carrying banking business and is thus not eligible. In our opinion, the assessee is not a co-operative bank. The activities in the nature of accepting deposits, advancing loans etc., carried on by the assessee are confined to its members only and that too in a particular geographical area. The activities of the assessee are not regulated by the RBI or the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1057
Reopening of assessment - deductions of additional depreciation on CPPs and grant of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of income from CPPs - Held that:- Each such ground of addition was subject matter of verification and specific consideration during the course of original assessment proceedings, appellate proceedings, and in the revisional proceedings undertaken in this assessee’s case. The reopening of the assessment order, especially made u/s 143(3), merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO, by reappraisal of evidence already existing on records or on the basis of mere change of opinion of the related provisions of the law and its interpretation is patently invalid, wholly without jurisdiction and is grossly erroneous. It will be imperative to repeat that all such claim and deductions were accepted after a careful consideration of the entire relevant material, the relevant provisions of law and the relevant judgments relating to all those points. Hence reopening the said completed assessment without any fresh material or without any contrary direct binding judicial precedent, is patently illegal.
Thus we strike down the very reassessment proceedings which are based on the charge of opinion of the A.O. On merits also the case of the assessee is strong but since we have already allowed the legal ground raised in the CO, we need not to decide the appeal of the revenue on its merit and in the circumstances all the grounds raised become infructuous. Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed having become infructuous. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1056
Estimation of profit - wine business - Held that:- Profit in case of business in Indian made foreign liquor has to be estimated at 5% of the purchases made by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad bench in Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda Versus Ravindra Reddy, Chander Rao, Saidulu Narsing, Sridhar Reddy E., Raju Gurram, Bal Reddy Mekala, and others [2012 (5) TMI 699 - ITAT HYDERABAD], we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to estimate the profit from the wine business of the assessee by applying the rate of 5% of the purchases made net of all other deductions. The assessing officer should also bear in mind that in no case the income determined should be below the income returned.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1055
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- There was no failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing all the necessary information and material and in view of proviso to s. 147 of IT Act, the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by issue of notice under s. 148 of IT Act. The reopening under s. 147 of the Act by the AO on the basis of change of opinion was not justified. The revision of the assessment order cannot be permitted by the AO himself under the guise of reassessment. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition made under s. 40A(3) - expenses was not found to be covered under r. 6DD © of IT Rules - Held that:- The nature and circumstances of the business of the assessee are same as they were in the asst. yr. 2006-07 and asst. yr. 2007-08. Therefore the findings of Tribunal are applicable for the asst. yr. 2008-09 also. Therefore, in view of the above decision of Tribunal in the case of assessee itself, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 19,05,000 made by the AO by disallowing the cash payment under s. 40A(3) of IT Act. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 19,05,000 is deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of provision for development expenses - provision claimed by the assessee as future liability of development expenses against the sales of the plot booked by it in these years - assessee is a colonizer who purchases agricultural land from the farmers and get it converted from JDA - Held that:- The main problem which the assessee is facing that most of the lands were in joint names. Some of the original Khatedar sold the land to the assessee but some of them have not sold to the assessee. Since the Khasaras are in joint names therefore without Takasana it was not possible to carry out development work on the land, which the assessee sold. This is also a reason that the assessee invested huge amount in gold bullion to keep the money in reserve separately for the purpose of development work. However, liability towards development expenses to be incurred in future on the plots sold did not extinguish merely because the assessee has incurred small part of expenses in next few years. The AO held that the funds of provision made for development of land are being used for expansion of the business. The assessee used the funds for expansion of business as the development work could not be carried out at full swing due to certain reasons. The surplus funds were not used otherwise than for business purpose. The above explanation cannot be rejected merely on surmises and conjectures rather it appears to be bona fide.The learned AO was not justified in making the additions by disallowing the provision for development expenses claimed by the assessee as future liability of development expenses against the sales of the plot booked by it in these years. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1054
Reversal of Cenvat Credit - common inputs - Whether Rule 6(3)(b) is mandatory where separate inventory was not maintained - Reversal of credit @8% as per the Rule 6(3)(b) or proportionate reversal of the credit - manufacturing of dutiable and exempted products - Held that:- where the credit taken has been reversed on inputs utilised in manufacturing of the final exempted product stand deleted in the account of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final product, which is exempted - No demand - decided against the revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1053
Waiver of predeposit of MODVAT along with interest - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) on earlier occasion remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the original copies of the invoices but the applicant failed to produce the original copies for verification. A plea was taken by the applicant before the Commissioner (Appeals) that on earlier occasion they produced the original copies of invoices before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is negated by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order with detailed finding. Prima facie, the applicant failed to produce the original invoices. The learned counsel submittion that they have placed the duplicate copies of invoices which was not considered by the lower authorities would be looked into at the time of hearing the appeals at length. In view of that the applicant is directed to make predeposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 23.5.2014. Upon such deposit, predeposit of the balance dues stands waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1052
Taxability of receipts in US dollars - Interest under section 234B - Held that:- We find that the consistent understanding and approach of the parties as is now confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.Ltd, [2007 (5) TMI 196 - SUPREME Court] that it is only the income of the business as is reasonably attributed to the operation carried out in India which can be said to be covered by subsection( 1) of section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, as a finding of fact, it has been concurrently held that the receipts in US dollars mentioned in paragraph 4.2 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not taxable. The only aspect that would be said to be covered is the one in paragraph nos.4 and 4.1 of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal therefore was right in upholding this order and equally directing deletion of the interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1051
Whether the figure mentioned in the impugned order is correct or not - while quantifying the amount of waiver of pre-deposit, the learned Tribunal has taken a mistaken and incorrect figure - Held that:- to make the amount of deposit in a round figure, it would be ₹ 3 crores instead of ₹ 3.4 crores. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion in asking to make the deposit. - Appeal disposed of
-
2014 (3) TMI 1050
Locus standi to file appeal - petitioner is a ration card holder made certain complaints against the fourth respondent - Held that:- Since the matter is seized by the first respondent, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1049
Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Failed to produce original and duplicate copies of AREs-1 duly endorsed by the customs as a proof of export - Export consignment cleared for which proof of exemption was not allegedly submitted in time and excisable goods were removed without payment of duty under cover of invalid letter of undertaking (LUT) - Held that:- insistence on the proof of exports is understood. However, the insistence on production of ARE’s and terming it as a primary one has not been supported in law. Mr. Shah is therefore justified in criticizing the revisional authority on the ground that the authority was oblivious of execution of other documents and particularly in respect of the clearance of goods under bond/LUT. If there is adequate proof of exports then, non-production of ARE-1 would not result in the allegations being proved and the demand being confirmed. There is no question of penalty being imposed in such a case as well and without verification of the records. The penalty could have been imposed had there been absolutely no record or no proof of any export. The approach of the revisional authority therefore, is not in conformity with law as laid down in UM Cables Limited v. Union of India [2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
In the present case, the fundamental issue has not been examined and the order suffers from a patent error. It is also suffering from clear perversity and in not referring to the contents of the documents which are forming part of the two letters. If the two letters they point towards Bill of Lading and equally the commercial invoice, shipping bill. Mr. Shah would urge that the confirmation of payment by buyers is on record. Then, the Revisional authority should have expressed an opinion thereon and whether that has any impact on the claim made by the Department. That having not done, the Revisional authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in law. The Revisional order deserves to be quashed and set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner by restoring revision application
-
2014 (3) TMI 1048
Disallowance on account of understatement of closing stock - change of acounting method - Held that:- So far as the change of account is concerned, it is a settled fact that section 145 of I.T. Act deals with method of accounting and this section has been substituted by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and thereafter sec. 145(1) mandates that the income chargeable under the head business and profession or income from other sources has to be computed either under the cash method or mercantile system of accounting. Sub-section (2) mandates the Central Government to notify in the Official Gazette, the Accounting Standards which are mandatorily required to be followed by any class of assessee or in respect of any class of income. The Central Government has so far notified only AS-1 and AS-2 and other Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, has only advisory status of a technical body. So far as its application vis-a-vis Income tax provisions are concerned, the method of valuation by a particular method is based on commercial consideration.
Any method which can give a proper computation of income for the previous year as per I.T. Law is a good method. The method of valuing the stock at "cost or market price whichever is less" has been accepted by different judicial forums and such change can be rejected only after bringing on record that the change if made from one method to another of valuing the stock at cost or at market cost whichever is less is driven by considerations to lower the profit only. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the change was made by the assessee with any such motive and the finding given by the Assessing Officer to that effect was found to be based on assumption only. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was justified in reversing the finding of Assessing Officer on the claim of assessee. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (3) TMI 1047
Issues: Allegations of clandestine removal leading to duty evasion
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to allegations of clandestine removal of final products to evade Central Excise duty. The case involved a Show Cause Notice issued to the respondents, accusing them of suppressing production of ingots by showing excessive burning loss, thereby avoiding duty amounting to Rs. 5,64,092. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.
Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was noted that the demand was primarily based on excessive burning loss observed during a specific period. However, the appellate authority highlighted that the charge of clandestine removal, a serious offense, needed to be established with concrete evidence beyond mere observations. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the necessity of additional investigations to support the allegations, such as excess production, electricity usage, or bank account scrutiny, to substantiate the claim of clandestine removal. Merely rebutting defenses without substantial corroborative evidence was deemed insufficient to prove the accused's involvement in the alleged offense.
Furthermore, the appellate authority referenced previous Tribunal decisions to support the stance that allegations of clandestine removal cannot solely rely on excess wastage or loss. The judgment emphasized the requirement for concrete evidence beyond statistical data to establish the serious accusation of clandestine removal. Ultimately, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations of duty evasion through clandestine removal.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of thorough investigations and concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal and duty evasion. Mere statistical anomalies, such as excess wastage or loss, are insufficient to prove such serious charges without additional supporting evidence. The decision reaffirms the principle that in cases involving revenue evasion, evidentiary standards must go beyond mere observations and necessitate a more robust investigative approach to establish culpability conclusively.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1046
Negligence and complete lack of devotion to duty - applicability of Rule-9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Held that:- From perusal of provision of Rule-9 as well as findings of the disciplinary authority, it is clear that the applicant has been found guilty on the ground of negligence and complete lack of devotion to duty. Thus, the allegation of the applicant that the grounds taken in his report were not considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment is not valid as the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has elaborately discussed the IO's report, disagreement note as well as contention of the applicant.
As this Tribunal cannot sit as a appellate forum on the fact findings of the disciplinary authority , we cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1978 (4) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it is held that standard of proof required in disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has given his reasoning and raised reasonable doubt and thereafter come into conclusion that though there may not be any ulterior motive but there is clear negligence and devotion of duty on the part of the applicant. Thus, the findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be termed as perverse. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
With regard to interest on the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, which was due at the time of retirement, we are of the opinion that as per Rule-9 , the President reserves the right of withholding pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part , if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. As in the instant case, the President has only imposed penalty of 30% of monthly pension for five years under Rule-9, but no adverse order was passed with regard to gratuity, leave encashment etc., we hold that the gratuity and leave encashment are due from the date the applicant was allowed to superannuate and if any payment is made thereafter is liable for interest. Thus, the applicant is entitled for 8% interest on the due amount of gratuity and leave encashment from the date of superannuation till the date of final payment. However, interest of commutation of pension is not admissible as it has to be calculated on the basis of final order.
-
2014 (3) TMI 1045
Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - addition on account of credits appearing Bank accounts of six persons - Held that:- No doubt here in of the assessee’s case, what was finally assessed, except for assessment year 2006-07 was higher than the income returned in the return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. For assessment year 2007-08, such difference was only due to correction of mistakes in calculation of deposits and credits in the Bank accounts, which was offered by the assessee himself. For assessment year 2009-10, the difference was due to the addition of deposits in the account of Mrs. Rina Sinha, for undisclosed share application money, for alleged sale of shares of M/s. Bangla Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., and clubbing of minor’s income. Of these. credits in the bank account of Mrs. Rina Sinha, was voluntarily offered by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.
In the case before us there was no survey or search at any place, prior to the disclosure of the bank accounts in the name of five persons as his own by the assessee on 28.01.2010. There was only an enquiry in progress on such accounts by the Department. Well before any notice was issued by the Department, assessee had come up with his disclosure and filed an affidavit before DDI(Investigation). Even Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) could not have been applied on the assessee since assessee had offered explanation and furnished all particulars of the income disclosed by him. As already mentioned by us, particulars of every item of income offered by the assessee and added by the Assessing Officer is clearly available in the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10, wherein Assessing Officer has elaborately analyzed the information and particulars given by the assessee, as to how the credits in various bank accounts had come in. None of such explanation given by the assessee were found to be untrue or incorrect.- Decided in favour of assessee
Penalty under section 271AAA - Held that:- The income finally computed by the Assessing Officer was less than the sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- declared by the assessee prior to the search in his letter dated 28.01.2010addressed to the DDIT(Investigation). In the notice issued under section 271AAA for levy of penalty, (paper book page no.22) Assessing Officer stated that assessee had not satisfied the conditions mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 271AAA of the Act. However, in the penalty order he stated that assessee had concealed his income knowingly and intentionally in the return of income filed before the search. However, for assessment year 2010-11, the return was filed by the assessee on 02.10.2010, which was after the date of search. Levy of penalty under section 271AAA was for a different reason than the one mentioned in the notice. Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the other hand observed that assessee did not satisfy the condition mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 271AAA. None of the lower authorities could point out which condition assessee had not satisfied. Assessee had in the statement taken from him under section 132(4) of the Act admitted the undisclosed income arising out of the deposits in the Bank accounts of five persons. In the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10, Assessing Officer himself has clearly mentioned elaborately at pages 2 to 14 of his order as to how the amounts came into the accounts of the benamis of the assessee. That the detailed information with regard to these transactions resulting in the credits in the Bank accounts were given by the assessee himself, is mentioned by the Assessing Officer. Thus levy of penalty under section 271AAA could not have been fastened on the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1044
Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - Held that:- The statement is not relatable to any seized material and therefore the statement cannot be the basis for making any addition. Considering the above decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran & Others reported in [2006 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], we do not have any hesitation to delete the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) because the statement of the assessee was not based on any seized material, but a blend admission to the opinion imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Further, the Revenue has not produced any material before us other than the statement of the assessee to establish that the assessee had paid on-money. Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer for U/s. 69 of the Act stands deleted - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1043
Seeking direction for amending certificate of registration of the petitioner-company under the CST Act, 1956 - Whether a civil works contractor is entitled to include machinery, tools and equipment used for execution of works contracts and accessories, in the certificate of registration under the CST Act, to claim the concessional rate of tax on inter-State purchase of such equipment, under section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, read with rule 13 of the CST Rules, 1957 - Engaged in the construction of bridges, flyovers, roads and multi-storied buildings - Held that:- it was not necessary that the property in the plant, machinery or equipment should be transferred to the contractees, which would be a case of resale simpliciter. Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act was not confined only to purchase for the purpose of resale, but expressly covered plant, machinery, equipment, etc., if required for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Such goods for sale could be in the form of goods or in any other form. In other words the goods of sale might undergo a transformation, alteration or change.
In the case of a works contract too, articles integral to the process of manufacture such as tools, plant, machinery, equipment, for example concrete mixers, pumps, hydraulic mobile cranes, vehicles, computers is used for preparing plans designs, etc., vehicles used for carrying construction materials, etc., and other similar articles would be eligible for concessional tax even though such goods may not actually be incorporated in execution of the contract. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, erred in law in refusing to amend the certificate of registration of the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by adding construction equipment, machinery and tools such as hydraulic mobile crane, vehicle, pump material, computer, accessories, office equipment, etc., used in the process of execution of a works contract in the certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act and it should be included in the registration certificate. - Decided in favour of petitioner
-
2014 (3) TMI 1042
Rebate claims rejected - admissibility of rebate claim - Held that:- The lower authorities have rightly held that it was not possible to confirm the payment of duty in these cases. The fundamental requirement for determining admissibility of rebate claim is that export of duty paid goods is proved beyond doubt. In this case the duty paid nature of goods is not proved and therefore rebate claim are rightly held inadmissible to the applicants under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Government does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. - Decided against assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1041
Rebate claim rejected - Held that:- Exported goods cannot be correlated with the duty paid goods cleared from factory of manufacture. The applicant contended that they have cleared certain quantity of goods for home clearances and remaining quantity for exports. However, the applicant failed to submit a detailed co-relation chart duly supported by documentary evidences showing that quantity of goods cleared for home consumption and export. They have also failed to submit the legible copies of ARE-1, shipping bill, bill of lading, CB Invoice, commercial invoice application filed by CCE, Bangalore seeking extension of time to export goods, and permission granted by CCE, Bangalore though they had promised to furnish the same in a week’s time. Further, the enclosure of verification report of Range Superintendent of Taloja Range is not properly signed by authorized signatory. The stock verification report enclosure having detail of stock is also not signed by Central Excise Superintendent. Under such circumstances, Government finds that the applicant has failed to establish that the duty paid goods cleared from factory of manufacturer were have actually been exported in impugned case. In view of above, Government concurs with detailed findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, finds no reason to interfere with the same.
Government finds that rebate of central excise duty is a beneficial legislation and the same is subjected to fulfilment of certain condition. Government finds support from the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE reported as [2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ], and M/s. Paper Products v. CCE reported as [1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] that the simple and plain meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to. - Decided against assessee
-
2014 (3) TMI 1040
Rebate claim rejected - Held that:- Government notes that as per provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-7-2004 where any goods exported, the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods shall be granted subject to such conditions or limitation specified on the notification. In terms of condition (a) of said Notification, dated 6-9-2004 excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty directly from a factory or warehouse except as otherwise permitted by C.B.E. & C. The Central Board of Excise and customs vide Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997 relaxed the condition of direct export of goods from factory subject to compliance of procedure prescribed therein. The harmonious reading of these statutory provisions makes it clear that rebate shall be granted when excisable goods are exported after payment of duty. In this case it is on records that goods were exported without payment of duty. The fundamental condition for granting rebate claim is that duty paid goods are exported. In this case, this condition is not satisfied and therefore, rebate claim cannot be held admissible. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the adjustment of duty before filing of rebate claim as compliance of condition No. 2(a) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 r/w provision of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In view of above said statutory position the said rebate claims of ₹ 91,34,616/- pertaining to ARE-1 Nos. 29/2009-10 and 30/2009-10 both, dated 17-3-2010 are not admissible to the respondents. - Decided against assessee
............
|
9911796707
