|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1233 Records
-
2014 (5) TMI 1054 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Release and return of Containers – Petitioner seeking direction upon Respondents to release and return 14 containers belonging to petitioner – It was contended by Petitioner that Cargo has to be destuffed and empty containers have to be handed over to Petitioner – Held that:- such matters reflect lack of decision making on part of concerned Authorities – It was open for Authorities to have arranged for storage of cargo and which is subject matter of investigation and adjudication and release empty containers – In these circumstances court would highly appreciate all concerned taking early action and returning empty containers to Petitioner – Court expect all concerned to take decision in terms of this order.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT
Request for appointment of the nominee arbitrator - Constitution of arbitral tribunal - Held that:- manner in which the contract was made between the petitioner and the respondent was investigated by the CBI. As a part of the investigation, the CBI had seized all the original documents and the record from the office of the respondent. After investigation, the criminal case CC No.22 of 2011 has been registered, as noticed earlier. It is claimed that in the event the Chairman of the Organising Committee and the other officials who manipulated the grant of contract in favour of the respondent are found guilty in the criminal trial, no amount would be payable to the petitioner. Therefore, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the criminal proceedings before the arbitral tribunal is constituted to go into the alleged disputes between the parties. - The balance of convenience is tilted more in favour of permitting the arbitration proceedings to continue rather than to bring the same to a grinding halt.
Plea was never taken till the present petition was filed in this Court. Earlier, the respondents were only impressing upon the petitioners to supply certain information. Therefore, it would be appropriate, let the Arbitral Tribunal examine whether there is any substance in the plea of fraud now sought to be raised by the respondents. - The purpose of the solitary rule is to avoid embarrassment to the accused. In contrast, the findings recorded by the arbitral tribunal in its award would not be binding in criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid case has clearly held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down that civil proceedings in all matters ought to be stayed when criminal proceedings are also pending. - The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, as well as, to the Second Arbitrator to enable them to enter upon the reference and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1052 - ITAT CHENNAI
penalty u/s 271D and 271E - ITO has found during the survey proceedings that the assessee had violated the provisions of both the sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act as the assessee had accepted the loans in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/- and repaid the loan exceeding ₹ 20,000/- - Held that:- From the penalty order, the facts are very clear that the assessee had borrowed ₹ 15.00 lakhs in cash and repaid 15.00 lakhs in cash in the assessment year 2008-09. Again he borrowed 20 lakhs on two occasions and repaid ₹ 24 lakhs in cash in the assessment year 2009-10. In the assessment year 2010-11, again, the assessee borrowed ₹ 20 lakhs and repaid in cash. In the assessment year 2011-12, he borrowed ₹ 20 lakhs and repaid ₹ 23 lakhs. Further, in the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had repaid ₹ 13 lakhs in cash. These facts are not disputed by the assessee. He has not given any explanation neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(Appeals) or even before us. He is not in a position to explain what is the reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash and repaid the same in cash. It is very clear from the order of the Assessing Officer that he has given as many as number of opportunities to explain his case before him. However, the assessee has not utilized those opportunities and he was not in a position to explain as to what was the reason for accepting and repaying monies in cash, which is contrary to the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. After carefully going through the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(Appeals), we are of the opinion that the assessee is not in a position to give any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and therefore, he has avoided to attend before the lower authorities. Now, the ld. Counsel for the assessee is requesting to remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals), which appears to be not fair, just and proper.
Once the assessee obtained loans in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/- and repaid it in cash, if this factual position is correct, the only option for the assessee is to explain the reasons under what circumstances the assessee has obtained the loans and repaid the loans in cash as prescribed under sections 269SS and 269T. Other materials and arguments of the assessee are irrelevant and immaterial in the context of the present case. In this case, the assessee has not explained under what circumstances he has borrowed loans in cash and repaid in cash either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Even before us, no explanation was given. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to impose penalty - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1051 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 415 days - Held that:- Though delay is substantial, it is explained by mentioning that the assessee is a partnership firm and Shri Nandkishore Sakarlal, who looks after the partnership’s financial and tax matters has not been keeping good health since last couple of years, during which he had been admitted for eight months in the hospital - Shri Nandkishore Sakarlal is aged about ninety years. Under the circumstances, delay is condoned. - Delay condoned.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1050 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Fraudulent transactions - Availment of higher Cenvat Credit on rolled products which were described as Non Alloy Steel SLR, Bars & Rods of Non-Alloy Steel Rejected Cut pieces, Bars and Rods of Non-alloy Steel, Non-Alloy Steel Rounds(Rejected), Non-Alloy Steel Rounds (Rejected cut pieces), Round Bar S/L Rejected Round Bar Small Pieces, M. S. Round Cuttings and Non-Alloy Steel Round S/L Rejected. - Held that:- Court directed that on deposit of ₹ 10 lacs by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal for want of pre-deposit. However, the deposit was subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount stands deposited by the petitioner. - A further sum of ₹ 15 lacs in addition to the aforesaid amount of ₹ 10 lacs be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal which would meet the ends of justice. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1049 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Recall of order - Order dismissing appeal for non compliance - Held that:- While passing stay order [2012 (6) TMI 582 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], bench has appreciated that the case of the appellant is covered by the out decision of the Tribunal as reported above and that is against the appellant. Therefore, when appeal was found to be devoid of merit and there is direction for deposit of entire Service Tax demand, multiple restoration applications filed by appellant is merely to perpetuate litigation causing unwarranted hardship to other side. This also throws light that the appellant is only avoiding its liability imposed under law. It would therefore be mockery if present applications are not dismissed. Accordingly to prevent further abuse of process of law all the present miscellaneous applications are dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1048 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - benefit of Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. - Held that:- installation of distribution system and installation of transformers is in the nature of infrastructure and creation of infrastructure for transmission and distribution are not covered by the Notification. - The notification exempts all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to any other person. The term “relating to transmission and distribution of electricity” in our opinion, is wide enough to cover the activities of the appellant. - Appellant’s activities are covered by the retrospective exemption Notification No. 45/2010 and therefore the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1047 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Demand of service tax - Reverse charge mechanism - Held that:- the Service Tax liability which is fastened on the appellant along with the interest is correctly held to be paid by the appellant inasmuch as, during the material period such a provision does exist in form of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. We do not find any reason to interfere in such an order which upholds the Service Tax liability and the interest thereof. The appeal filed by the appellant to that extent is rejected. - during the material period, appellant could have being under the bona fide impression, as to since the services were rendered i.e. testing of the product was done abroad, the Service Tax liability on the appellant may not arise - appellant has shown sufficient cause for setting aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority - Decided partly in favour of assesssee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1046 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre deposit - construction of complex and construction of residential services - Held that:- The applicants have undertaken the construction activity of building of HIG residential premises for MHADA. - As the applicant provided the taxable service therefore, prima facie the applicant had not made out a case for total waiver. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are directed to deposit 50% of the Service Tax confirmed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues is waived and recovery thereof stayed for hearing of the appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1045 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Denial of refund claim - Held that:- it is not a show cause notice which would lead to any imposition of liability against the petitioner. In fact the petitioner had filed an application for refund and it is towards consideration of the same that the authority has issued a show cause notice, disclosing the prima facie findings, so as to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth contentions which would counter the same effectively. Hence, neither can it be said that the show cause notice is totally non est; nor that it is without jurisdiction. It is under a specific statutory provision that the petitioner has invoked the power of refund conferred on the authority. In such circumstance, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the proceedings at this stage, especially since entertaining the writ petition would eventually result in either rejection of the claim of the petitioner or allowing the same, which exercise this Court would not be entitled to embark upon, under Article 226. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1044 - SC ORDER
If the appellant had discharged its full duty and interest liability, that itself showed its bonafide or not. - Simultaneous penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 - The benefit of this Amendment in Section 78 by the Finance Act, 2008 - Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay filed by the Revenue against the decision of Delhi High Court [2011 (8) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein high court held that there is bonafide error on the part of Appellant. Therefore there is not question of penalty.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1043 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Applicability of enhanced rate of duty as amended in the manner specified in the Seventh Schedule of the Finance Act, 2008 coming into force with immediate effect after passing of the Bill on 29.04.2008 or on date of enactment as on 10.05.08 - appellant engaged in the manufacture of Portland Pozzolana Cement falling under sub-heading 25232930 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - demand raised arising out of the substitution of tariff rate of ₹ 900/- per ton in place of ₹ 600/- per ton for the intervening period from 29.04.2008 to 09.05.2008 - Held that:- Tribunal has taken a correct view of the matter. A declared provision in the bill may ultimately be passed with or without amendment. Obviously, an amendment can be made applicable to an entry which was originally there in the bill. An entry which was not there at all and was subsequently brought in, cannot be said to have been protected by the declaration made under Section 3 of the Act of 1931. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1042 - ITAT CHENNAI
Nature of payment made to M/s. Pyramid Saimira Entertainment Ltd. - goodwill v/s goodwill gesture - Revenue v/s capital - Held that:- The assessee has not been able to show as to who authorised M/s. Pyramid Saimira Entertainment Ltd., to receive payment from the assessee to be disbursed to the exhibitors who have actually suffered the loss. There is nothing on record to show whether the payments have been actually received by the persons who have suffered losses. Therefore, from the records, we find that M/s. Pyramid Saimira Entertainment Ltd., has no locus standi.
The assessee made the said payments to protect its goodwill in the market. The assessee has to operate and do business in the market in future as well, the assessee had to maintain its goodwill. The assessee has not been able to show from the agreements dated February 16, 2008 or supplementary agreement dated July 28, 2008 that the said payment is made in accordance with the covenants of agreement. A perusal of records, as well as the assessee's own admission make it absolutely clear that the payment was not made to discharge any legal liability. The payment was made either voluntarily or out of pressure from the market forces but it was certainly not out of business obligation. The assessee made the payment in the form of compensation to stay afloat in the business
The assessee has not been able to show that the payments were actually received by the persons who suffered losses. This casts a shadow over the genuineness of the payment. Even if the payment is believed to be genuine, the same is held to be capital in nature and thus cannot be allowed under section 37 of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1041 - ITAT COCHIN
Non deduction of tds - demand raised under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) - "assessees-in-default" for non-deduction of tax at source on the interest paid to the depositors - Held that:- A plain reading of section 197A(1A) shows that the said provision overrides the provisions of section 194A if the modalities prescribed in section 197A(1A) are complied with. The section further states that the person responsible for paying any income of the nature referred to in section 194 or section 194A or section 194K shall not deduct tax under any of the abovesaid sections in the case of a person, if such person furnishes a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. Hence, it was contended by the learned authorised representative that the assessee cannot deduct tax at source, if the recipient of the interest amount furnishes declaration in the prescribed form.
We have already noticed that the duplicate copies of declarations furnished by the depositors in Form 15H/15G are required to be filed with the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Under these circumstances, it is not clear as to how the Income-tax Officer (TDS) can reject those declarations furnished by the depositors. We notice that the tax authorities have not addressed these contentions also.
Thus the Income- tax Officer (TDS) has passed the impugned orders without properly addressing the various contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, this matter requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Restore all the matters to the file of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) with the direction to examine all the issues afresh by duly considering various contentions urged by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1040 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - non furnishing of the requisite documents - Cancellation of invoice - Held that:- even if for noncompliance of any of the provisions of the VAT Act and when the goods were brought into the State of Gujarat and it can be considered to be the local sale, in that case also, the liability under the VAT Act towards tax, interest and penalty would be ₹ 5,69,989/-. Now, when the petitioner who is the original owner of the goods is ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount towards tax, penalty and interest, which can be the maximum liability under the VAT Act and when the owner/proprietor of M/s. Saloni Trading Company in the form of affidavit has stated that he has not purchased any goods from the petitioner, meaning thereby M/s. Saloni Trading Company is not the owner of the goods in question, it will be just and proper to direct the respondents to release the goods which is under seizure on payment of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 5,69,989/- as no fruitful purpose would be served to continue the goods in question under seizure. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1039 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether imposition of 100% penalty is justifiable when the duty as well as interest along with 25% of the duty has been deposited prior to the passing of the Order-in-Original dated July 20, 2009 by the adjudicating authority and/or denial of benefit provided under Section 11AC of the Act is wrong and contrary to law - Held that:- Divisional Preventive Staff conducted an inspection of the appellant-firm on July 30, 2008 during which, 20.100 MT quantity of Silicon Manganese involving Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,14,483/- was found deficit. The said fact was admitted by Darbara Singh, one of the partners of appellant-firm but he could not furnish any plausible explanation for the shortage. Accordingly, the respondent-Revenue issued a show cause notice dated January 30, 2009 which was duly replied. At the time of filing of reply to the show cause notice on February 10, 2009, the amount of duty and interest payable thereon along with 25% penalty was deposited much prior to the passing of the impugned order dated July 20, 2009 imposing penalty, of ₹ 2,14,483/- which is equal to the amount of duty of excise determined by the adjudicating authority. - whereas authority relied upon by learned Counsel for respondent-Revenue captioned as Dharamendra Textile Processor’s case (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT) is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the respondent-Revenue has also failed to show any judgment taking a contrary view - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1038 - SC ORDER
Imposition of penalty - forged and fabricated licences - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of Delhi High Court [2011 (2) TMI 545 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein High Court held that the fact that no enquiry regarding the normal premium was made by the Department cannot justify the appellant’s stand of having purchased the advance licences bona fide at such a low price - This case related to fulfilling of certain export obligations under the licence and it was recorded, as a matter of fact, that the raw materials imported by the licence holders were sold before fulfilling the export obligations under the licence and that even the export proceeds had not been realized.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1037 - ITAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - loss on account of currency fluctuation debited - Held that:- It is also true that the assessee has to evaluate the current position of such foreign exchange loan as on the last day of the previous year. If a liability is cast on the assessee on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate, the assessee has to provide for the same in its books of account. This is a mandatory provision for companies. The assessee has provided for such liability arising out of the currency fluctuation. In respect of such liability arising out of the currency fluctuation, treatment has to be given in two ways ; first, in respect of revenue items and second, in respect of capital items. In the present case, loss of RS.1,93,13,616 related to capital items and therefore, the said loss should have been added to the cost of assets acquired by the assessee utilising the foreign exchange loan as provided under section 43A. On the other hand, in its return, the assessee claimed this amount also as loss instead of claiming higher amount of depreciation. This is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This is a case of a mistake or an oversight or at the best, a case of wrong claim. There is no scope to invoke section 271(1)(c) in the present case. - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT
Land Acquisition by Government for public purposes namely the 'planned development of Delhi' - Objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894 - Principle of Natural Justice - High Court has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in view of the fact that the objections filed by the respondents-tenure holders under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had not been considered by the statutory authorities in strict compliance of principles of natural justice - Held that:- Section 5-A of the Act 1894 confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions, contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. Thus, the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to object to the acquisition proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, which can be taken away only for good and valid reason and within the limitations prescribed under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894.
The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons.
This Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao [1959 (8) TMI 42 - Supreme Court of India], held that “Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.” (Emphasis added) . In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the very person/officer, who accords the hearing to the objector must also submit the report/ take decision on the objection and in case his successor decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The facts are not in dispute. A huge chunk of land covering 11 villages was notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 in 1980. A large number of people had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894 and it has been admitted on oath by the officer of the appellant department that in almost all these appeals, the tenure holders or their processor in interest had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894. This is also not in dispute that most of the objections were heard by one land acquisition collector and after his transfer, the report had been submitted by his successor. In Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India [1987 (5) TMI 370 - DELHI HIGH COURT], full Bench of High Court of Delhi quashed the land acquisition proceedings in the said case exclusively on the ground that objections filed by the petitioner therein had been heard by one Land Acquisition Collector, however, the report was submitted by another. The land covered in these instant appeals stand covered by the same notification/declaration, same award and the objections had been dealt with by the same land acquisition collector and the report had been submitted by the same successor.
Admittedly, the appellants accepted that judgment and the same attained finality as the said judgment was never challenged by filing any S.L.P. before this court. In the light of aforesaid judgment, a large number of writ petitions had been allowed and the land acquisition proceedings arising out of the same notification/declaration had been quashed. Subsequently, in Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1997 (4) TMI 498 - SUPREME COURT],this Court dealt with the same issue arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and held that the judgment of quashing the acquisition proceedings would apply only to the land of those persons who had challenged acquisition proceedings and not to all the land covered by the said notification/declaration. The appellants had been under the impression that the judgment delivered by the full bench in Balak Ram Gupta , laid down the law applicable to other persons also whose land stood covered by the said notification/declaration.
In the instant cases, there had been challenge to the acquisition proceedings on various grounds including the manner in which objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894 had been decided. In some cases, the High Court allowed amendment to the writ petitions and such order had never been challenged by the appellants. In a case where on the basis of submissions advanced in the court on behalf of the parties, the court summons the original record to find out the truth, pleadings remain insignificant. In the instant cases, the High Court was satisfied after examining the original record that objections had been dealt with in flagrant violation of law and in such a fact-situation, the prejudice doctrine for non-observation thereof would not be attracted. We do not see any cogent reason to differ from such a view. No judgment had been brought to our notice on the basis of which it can be held that the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao [1959 (8) TMI 42 - Supreme Court of India] is not a good law.
It is evident from the record that in respect of a major chunk of land which stood covered under the same Section 4 notification, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed in a batch of 74 Writ Petitions having been filed before the Delhi High Court and the appellants, for the reasons best known to it, did not challenge the same and resultantly, the same has attained finality. For about a decade following the said judgment in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. [1987 (5) TMI 370 - DELHI HIGH COURT], proceedings in other cases have also been quashed and those decisions have not been challenged and have thus, also attained finality. A large number of cases filed before this court and particularly SLP (C) Nos. 208, 211 & 212 of 2008 stood dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2008, as the petitioners did not take steps to serve the respondents therein as is evident from the Office Report dated 25.6.2013. In such a fact scenario, where in respect of major chunk of land, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long back and which has attained finality, it is beyond our comprehension as to whether the scheme of planned development of Delhi can be executed at such a belated stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch may not be available.
In view of above, we do not see any force in these appeals even on merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. In view of the findings and particularly in view of the interpretations given to Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 in the judgments referred to herein above, it is not necessary to entertain any other ground whatsoever at the behest of the appellants. Thus, the appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed. - Decided against the appellant.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1035 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre deposit - Valuation - duty liability under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Held that:- Appellant is in manufacturing pan masala with or without tobacco and had filed declarations with the authorities as provided for in PMPM Rules. For the period in question, it is on record that the appellant was manufacturing pan masala with or without tobacco having different MRP’s like Re. 1.00, Re. 1.50, ₹ 2.00, ₹ 3.00 and ₹ 4.00 and had filed declarations in Forms 1 & 2 under Rules 6 & 9 of PMPM Rules. The lower authorities have come to a conclusion that during this material period, appellant had manufactured pan masala containing tobacco of MRP of ₹ 2.50 and had not declared the same specifically and hence duty liability was sought to be demanded from the appellants, which in our prima facie view, seems to be incorrect - assessee is required to pay the excise duty on a product manufactured of a retail sale price between ₹ 2.00 & ₹ 3.00 as determined by the authorities. Though there is a procedural requirement of filing the manufacturing activity under Forms 1 & 2 it would, in our view may not be of much consequence as the table hereinabove reproduced clearly indicates a range of MRP on which duty liability needs to be discharged. It is undisputed that during the material period appellant had discharged the duty liability as arrived under the PMPM Rules. Prima facie, additional duty demanded from the appellant seems to be unsustainable. - Stay granted.
............
|
