Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal lodged on 8th June, 2017 to be considered to be within the extended 45 days period or not - HELD THAT:- On the facts of the present case, it is clear that within a period of seven days, the defect pointed out was cured. This being the case, it is clear that the initial date of lodgement of the appeal is the date on which the appeal should be considered as filed, even though an appeal number may be given to the appeal subsequently.
The NCLAT's judgment deserves to be set aside, and the appeal that was lodged on 8th June, 2017 must be considered to be within the extended 45 days period.
The NCLAT has also noticed that no sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay that falls within the second 45 days period. This is incorrect inasmuch as the appellant has pleaded that as a result of the death of his uncle, the appellant was unable to process the appeal within the initial 45 days and that, therefore, he should be said to have made out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 42 days.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - mandation to recording satisfaction - ITAT upholding CIT(A)'s order of deleting addition - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Whether the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer u/s 14A(2) that the disallowance offered by the Assessee, having regard to the Accounts, is not correct, is a sine-qua-non before invoking Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules. It is also an agreed position that it is so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd[2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT] - Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
Character of the income derived - income derived from letting out of the premises of the I.T. Park - 'Business Income' or income from property - HELD THAT:- Revenue states that he is not pressing this question in view of the CBDT Circular No.16 of 2017 dated 25th April, 2017 as clarified that income arising from the letting out of the premises in an Industrial Park/ SEZ, are to be charged under the head 'Profits and gains of business' and not under the head 'Income from house property'
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee has shown dividend income from Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank as exempt income - exemption u/s 10(34) of the act on dividend income received from the bank was not available - HELD THAT:- As submissions made by the appellant are insufficient to conclude that there was 'change of opinion' on the issue of dividend income while reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. After considering the entire facts of the case reopening of assessment is valid and justified as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961
We observed that according to the provision of section 10(34) of the act the income received by way of dividend is exempted if dividend distribution tax has been paid as per the provision of section 115-0 of the acts. We have further observed that Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank being not a company is not subject to payment of dividend distribution tax.
We noticed that the assessee has shown dividend income from Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank claimed as exempt income but the assessee has not provided information about the nature of the impugned dividend income. The assessing officer observed that exemption u/s 10(34) of the act on dividend income received from the AOP which is not subject to payment of dividend distribution tax according to provision of section 115-O are not available. The assessee has not provided sufficient details which could have demonstrated the actual nature of the dividend income received by the assessee. Therefore, to examine the issue of availability of exemption on dividend income the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the act. Consequently during the reassessment proceedings the claim of the assessee that dividend income was exempt as per section 10(34) of the act was found to be invalid.
Therefore, after considering the above facts and material on record, we are inclined with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - Assessee failed to substantiate the payment of interest at an exorbitant rate to related parties as against prevailing market rate of interest of 12% - HELD THAT:- AO has disallowed out of the excess payment of interest to the friends and relatives on the unsecured loans in the proportionate and equivalent to an amount excess to the prevalent market rates. The assessee has failed to substantiate the payment of interest @ 24% on the loans to the relatives in comparison to the rate of 12% prevalent market rate of interest. The assessee had also paid the interest @ 12% on unsecured loans to many other parties.
After considering the facts in this regard, we observed that out of the interest paid to the relatives disallowance made u/s. 40A(2)(b) by the assessing Officer is reasonable and justified. Therefore, we do not find any error in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal is dismissed.
Seizure of goods - betel nuts that transported from West Bengal to New Delhi - imported goods or not - HELD THAT:- Petitioner's defence appears to be that the goods are not imported goods, but such as have been produced inside the country, therefore, the custom authority has no jurisdiction to detain or seize the same. While the aforesaid issue may be properly gone into in adjudication proceedings which are yet to be undertaken, at this stage, the goods being perishable in nature may not be detained by the custom authority any further. Accordingly, goods in question may be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to its furnishing security in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee for the full value of the goods as estimated by the custom authority.
The instant writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the respective parties to raise all issues for adjudication in proper proceedings.
TP Adjustment - determination of the Arms’ Length Price to the TPO u/s 92CA - considering only operating profit and operating cost relating to the AE transactions - MAM - DRP rejected the assessee’s contention of internal TNMM because the assessee did not submit the segmental results before the TPO or DRP - Whether TPO had erred in arriving at ALP by applying the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) on the total cost which includes cost attributable to non AEs also and the total receipts from both AEs and non-AEs? - HELD THAT:- We find that where the assessee has both the AE as well as non-AE transactions, the operating profit and operating cost relating to the AE transactions alone ought to be considered for arriving at the ALP and thereafter the fixed cost attributable to both the transactions ought to be apportioned. When the TPO has adopted the TNMM as the most appropriate method and the assessee has rendered similar services to both the AEs and non- AEs, and the non-AE transaction satisfy the internal TNMM. The AO, therefore, ought to have considered them for arriving at the ALP. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to consider only the operating profit/operating cost of AE transactions and also to consider internal TNMM where the services rendered by the assessee are similar both to AEs and non-AEs. Accordingly, grounds of appeal Nos.3 to 3.4 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Denial of deduction u/s 10A on the ground that Form No.56F was not filed along with the return of income - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the assessment order, that the assessee has filed e-return and there is no possibility of filing Form No.56F along with the e-return of income. It is also seen that the assessee has filed Form No.56F during the assessment proceedings and before completion of the assessment.
As in the case of American Data Solutions India (P) Ltd [2014 (2) TMI 128 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that the appellate proceedings are the continuation of the assessment proceedings and if Form No.56F is filed during the course of appellate proceedings, the same should be considered, as the requirement to file the Form 56F along with the return of income is only directory and not mandatory.AO is directed to consider Form No.56F and allow deduction u/s 10A of the Act, provided the assessee, otherwise fulfills all the other conditions prescribed u/s 10A of the Act. Thus, ground of appeal No.4 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Bad debts claim - amount is outstanding from “Collins & Aikman Litigation Trust Distribution Account” as on 31.03.2004 and since the said company has become bankrupt during the year, the assessee has written it off as bad debt - HELD THAT:- As it is the case of the assessee that the assessee has offered it as income in the relevant A.Y. in which it has received the amount - Subject to verification of this fact by the AO, i.e. whether the assessee has offered this income to tax in the relevant A.Y, i.e. 2013-14, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. If the assessee has offered this income to tax in the relevant A.Y, the claim of the assessee for the A.Y 2009-10 shall be allowed, as it is not disputed that Collins & Aikman Corporation has become bankrupt during the relevant financial year. As regards the amount receivable from SCSL and written off by the assessee, the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence in support of the same either before the authorities below or before us. Therefore, this addition is confirmed. Thus, ground of appeal No.5 is partly allowed.
Seeking to re-instate the petitioner in service - petitioner was placed under suspension from service with effect from 5-9-2016 under Rule 10 (3) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 on the reason that the petitioner was detained under custody for more than 48 hours - HELD THAT:- Suspension cannot be said to be a punishment. However, prolonged suspension amounts to punishment. In view of the above reason, this Court is of the view that the continued suspension of the petitioner will not be justified in this case. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be re-instated in service immediately. For the said reason, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass affirmative orders on Ext. P22 as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of 20 days from today. The learned Special Public Prosecutor will transmit a copy of this order to the 2nd respondent.
Lifting of seizure of the bank accounts - Appellants contend that to justify the freezing of the bank accounts the investigating authority must demonstrate that the monies held in these accounts are connected with the commission of the offence - HELD THAT:- The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code is no more res integra. That question has been directly considered and answered in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS TAPAS D. NEOGY [1999 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT]. The Court examined the question whether the police officer investigating any offence can issue prohibitory orders in respect of bank accounts in exercise of power Under Section 102 of the Code. The High Court, in that case, after analysing the provisions of Section 102 of the Code had opined that bank account of the Accused or of any relation of the Accused cannot be held to be "property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code. Therefore, the Investigating Officer will have no power to seize bank accounts or to issue any prohibitory order prohibiting the operation of the bank account - After this decision, there is no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence.
In the present case, FIR has been registered at least against three private Appellants, naming them as Accused. CJP Trust has not been named as an Accused in the FIR. But the investigation thus far, according to the Respondents, reveals that Teesta Atul Setalvad and Javed Anand are actively associated with the said Trusts and have carried out transactions which may be found under circumstances suspicious of the commission of the alleged offence - For the present, the Investigating Officer is of the view that there are certain circumstances emerging from the transactions done from these bank accounts which create suspicion of the commission of an offence. It is on that belief he has exercised his discretion to issue directions to seize the bank accounts pertaining to CJP Trust.
In the case of M.T. Enrica Lexie [2012 (5) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT], the Court noted in paragraph 7 that agencies had completed their respective investigations and vessel was seized in exercise of power Under Section 102 of the Code. In Para 16, the Court noted the concession given by the counsel for the Government that the vessel was not the object of the crime or the circumstances which came up in the course of investigation that create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
It is noticed that the prosecution has alleged that the two Trusts are run by the private Appellants and other Accused. They were actively involved in collecting huge funds as donation in the name of providing legal assistance to the 2002 Gujarat Riot Victims. Such donations received by the two Trusts had never reached the victims, the members of the Gulberg Society in respect of which grievance has been made in the subject FIR - It is alleged by the Respondents that the Appellants deliberately and intentionally did not disclose that they have already opened new accounts and transferred huge sums of money after knowing that stated bank accounts of the Appellants were seized on 21.01.2014 by the investigating agency. The details of the two newly opened accounts were not forthcoming. Further, in the proceedings filed before different Courts, incorrect plea has been taken by the Appellants, suggestive of the fact that their accounts were not compliant and duly scrutinized by the Competent Authority.
Once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the concerned Court, it would be open to the Appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts and persuade the concerned Court that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code - such a course would meet the ends of justice.
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- As carefully gone through the copy of ledger account of all the creditors. We find that inadvertently the tax auditor has treated the aforementioned persons under the head “unsecured loan” whereas, in fact, all the above persons are “trade creditors” and with whom the assessee has done some contract business including supply of labourers on contractual payments. We find that tax has been deducted at source as per the provisions of law. On given facts, we do not find this to be a fit case for the additions u/s 68.
Disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed in trading account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- It is true that the assessee did not file all the details of expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings. It is equally true that all the necessary details were furnished before the CIT(A) who had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Once the details have been furnished and transmitted to the AO, and the same were examined by the CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).
Seeking winding up of the respondent company - respondent company is unable to pay its debts - Sections 433(E) and 434 (1)(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The petition is admitted and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers ‘Statesman’ (English) and ‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. The cost of publication is to be borne by the petitioner who shall deposit a sum Rs.75,000/- with the Official Liquidator within 2 weeks, subject to any further amounts that may be called for by the liquidator for this purpose, if required - The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him.
Addition of “on money” towards purchase of the property (including commission) - HELD THAT:- As the details mentioned against the amount are clearly at variance as against that of the property under consideration, therefore, there was no occasion for the A.O to have acted upon the said impugned notings in context of the purchase of the property under consideration. We have further perused the notings marked as “Commission” of the impounded document, and though find that as against the term “Commission” certain amounts are found mentioned, but are unable to comprehend as to how such dumb notings have been related to the purchase of the property under consideration.
Thus here is no basis for relating the notings in the impounded document with the purchase of Flat by the assessee, therefore, are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O u/s 69 and sustained by the CIT(A), cannot be upheld. Decided in favour of assessee.
Accommodation entries estimation - Estimation @0.15% of the accommodation entries against which 50% expenses were allowable to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of Tribunal’s order for various years as placed on record, we find that the Tribunal in the case of the assessee as well as his associated concerns has estimated the additions @0.15% of the accommodation entries and the same rate have been adopted by the lower authorities. The assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.59,334/- which has been allowed to the extent of 20% by Ld. CIT(A). Since the Tribunal has allowed expenses to the extent of 50%, taking the same stand, we hold that the assessee shall be eligible for expenses to the extent of 50%.
TP Adjustment - TPO/AO adopting the ALP in respect of management and marketing support services fees paid by the appellant to its AE at Rs.Nil - payment for said services was made in terms of master agreement entered by the appellant with Volvo Truck Corporation, Sweden, i.e., its AE, which is a holding company.
HELD THAT:- Only valid reasons assigned by the TPO which remain uncontroverted for determining the ALP of the transaction of payment of management and marketing support services fees at Rs.Nil is that there was no evidence in support of rendering of services by the AE and the failure to substantiate real nature of services actually rendered by the AE .
We hold that the TPO was justified in determining the ALP of transaction of marketing and management support fees at ‘nil’.
When the case is covered against the assessee in its own case for the earlier assessment year, we find no reason for assessee to seek adjournment of the case, especially in the matters of very old matters i.e., 2010. It is for the assessee to arrange for its own affairs. The court cannot come to the rescue of an assessee who keeps changing counsel from time to time in order to gain time. We do not approve of this kind of practice of frequent change of counsel.
When the application for admission of additional evidence was rejected, the assessee again started pleading adjournment of the case. In any case, once the issue is duly covered against assessee, there was no occasion for the bench to adjourn the matter and further it is not befitting the stature of the counsel, to seek for adjournment in a covered matter.
It is a classic example of shifting of profit base outside the country. The appellant has also not controverted the findings of the TPO that it adopted a colourable device to shift the tax base of this country.
When the other transactions are accepted to be at arm’s length under the TNMM method, the TPO is not justified in adopting the CUP method for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of payment of management and marketing support services fee, is not correct in asmuchas the TPO had not examined the other transactions under the TNMM method.
Deduction u/s 10A - AO in reducing the tele-communication expenses incurred in India from 'export turnover' while computing deduction under section 10A as 'expenditure attributable to delivery of software outside India' under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tata Elxsi (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). We direct the AO to reduce telecommunication expenses both from export turnover as well as total turnover.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - deductions u/s. 80IA - Notice after expiry of four years - HELD THAT:- In this case, along with the return of income filed originally by the assessee the assessee had filed the audited accounts, tax audit report and auditor’s certificates certifying the amounts eligible for deductions u/s. 80IA - Later on, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) after thorough examination of the details, documents and evidences furnished in the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and the total income was determined after allowing deductions u/s 80IA and 80IC of the Act respectively
When all the facts have been disclosed which were necessary for the assessment at the original stage itself, after four years after scrutiny assessment has been done in this case, cannot be revisited by the AO without pointing out specifically as to which primary evidence was non-disclosed by the assessee during original 143(3) proceedings. Since the AO has failed to even point out remotely as to the failure of the assessee in not disclosing of primary facts during original assessment which was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which is sine qua non and essential jurisdictional fact, for the AO to reopen after four years the scrutiny assessment, thereby in this case, the A.O lacks jurisdiction to reopen and so is fragile in the eyes of law - Appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Revision u/s 263 - difference between lack of enquiries and inadequate enquiries - HELD THAT:- Deeming fiction has been created in section 263 of the Act by the amendment made by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.15 wherein it has been mentioned that where the Commissioner is of the opinion that the AO had passed the order without making enquiries or verifications which should have been made or a relief has been allowed without enquiring into the claim or that the same is not in accordance with any order or direction or instruction issued by CBDT, that shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as its prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The said deeming provisions, in our view, are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.
We find that the Hon’ble Supreme court and various other High Courts including our Jurisdictional High Court have been almost unanimous in holding that before enhancing or annulling or modifying or cancelling the assessment while exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner must record a finding of fact or of law that the order of the AO is erroneous and is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as discussed above.
In the case in hand, this prerequisite condition has not been satisfied as the Commissioner after calling for the explanation from the assessee has failed to make necessary exercise in examining or cause to examine the explanation/details submitted by the assessee for the justification of its claim and even without any further enquiry, directed the AO to make additions of the entire deposits into the income of the assessee. Hence, in the light of the various case laws as analyzed above, the order of the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be held to be sustainable in law. Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
Disallowance of provision for obsolescence of spares - reliance onaudit objection - addition made as not actual expenditure incurred by the assessee company; and two that this liability was unascertainable in the hands of the assessee company - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 1243 - ITAT MUMBAI] while dealing with identical issue has held that the provision for obsolescence of spares is not an ad hoc claim for deduction rather it is a claim in respect of normal wear and tear acceptable in the aeronautic industry and as such, claim is based on provision of Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956 which deals with the rate of depreciation.
CIT (A) vide impugned order has thrashed the issue at length to reach at the conclusion that the provision for obsolescence of spares is not an ad hoc provision but on the basis of actual uses of aircraft on hourly basis and maintenance is due after the prescribed hours of uses. It is ascertained liability which is charged as per airline industry practice and standard norms.
CIT (A) has rightly deleted an addition made by the AO on account of the provision for obsolescence of spares, being genuine expenditure to run the airline business. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Validity of Arbitral Award - Termination of contract - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The arbitrator has taken note of the peculiar features of the contract inter se the parties that while the work of excavation of the earth, its loading into the trucks, unloading and transportation to site of the work was awarded to the Appellant as contractor, the spreading of the earth brought to the site of the work by the contractor and its compaction was to be done by the Respondent Department itself. It is, thus, that the Appellant claimed that even though they had taken up the work with right earnest to complete it within the scheduled period, the breaches of the Respondent has caused the delay.
The dispute in question had resulted in a reasoned award. It is not as if the arbitrator has not appreciated the evidence. The arbitrator has taken a plausible view that the very nature of job to be performed would imply that there has to be an area for unloading and that too in the vicinity of 5 kilometres as that is all that the Appellant was to be paid for. The route was also determined. In such a situation to say that the Respondent owed no obligation to make available the site cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. The unpreparedness of the Respondent is also apparent from the fact that even post termination it took couple of years for the work to be carried out, which was meant to be completed within 45 days. The ability of the Appellant to comply with its obligations were inter dependent on the Respondent meeting its obligations in time to facilitate appropriate areas for unloading of the earth and for its compacting. At least it is certainly a plausible view.
It has been opined by this Court that when it comes to setting aside of an award under the public policy ground, it would mean that the award should shock the conscience of the court and would not include what the court thinks is unjust on the facts of the case seeking to substitute its view for that of the arbitrator to do what it considers to be "justice."
The learned single Judge ought to have restrained himself from getting into the meanderings of evidence appreciation and acting like a second appellate court. In fact, even in second appeals, only questions of law are to be determined while the first appellate court is the final court on facts. In the present case the learned single Judge has, thus, acted in the first appeal against objections dismissed as if it was the first appellate court against a decree passed by the trial court.
Rectification of the mistake -DR has submitted that the ground no.7 of the Revenue appeal has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal - Whether DRP erred in directing to exclude E-Infochips Ltd., from the list of comparables holding that no segmental information is available and that it fails 75% service revenue filter? - HELD THAT:- AR has not rebutted the submissions of DR regarding non-adjudication of this ground and has fairly conceded that the Tribunal may recall the order for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground no.7 of the Revenue’s appeal.
Tribunal has committed mistake apparent from the record as the Tribunal has not adjudicated the ground number 7, therefore we deem it appropriate to recall the decision for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground 7 of the Revenue’s appeal. Miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is allowed.
Validity and legality of dues diligence certificate based on which the housing loan was extended by bank - whether the aim of these papers were to cheat the bank or not - role of an Auditor in case of verifying credential of the proposed borrower - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the Due Diligence certificate given by the petitioner indicates at the bottom, that Bank Statement of the applicant not been submitted. Which means that, the Indian Bank which has sought the professional assistance of the petitioner had not furnished adequate document of its borrower but for sake of record had requested the petitioner to provide due diligence certificate - This observation of this Court emanates from the verification of the documents relied by the prosecution which is found in the file of the document 16. The petitioner herein has received the request from the Indian Bank for due diligence certificate on 29.08.2013. The petitioner has handed over the certificate on 22.09.2013 with information that on his verification, he has found that the applicant is a proprietor of MMM enterprise located at No.44, Alapakkam main road, Maduravoyal and dealing with old scarp materials.
While the bank officials have not been prosecuted for extending the loan, despite the receipt of CIBIL report, indicating the loans availed by the borrower Murugan and his actual bank balance on date of sanctioning loan, the petitioner herein who has discharged his professional duty based on the documents given by the Bank Official cannot be suspected for being party to the crime and put to the ordeal of prosecution.
In this case, the records relied by the prosecution as against the petitioner herein is the statement of LW.16 Malliga Rani, Branch Manager that she sanctioned loan to Murugan based on the due diligence certificate given by the Audit/petitioner herein. When the record indicates that they have obtained CIBIL report rating of the borrower before advancing the loan and despite adverse information they have extended loan, her statement does not appears to be correct or true. Therefore it is very clear from the statement of LW.16 that they have over looked the relevant materials which were available with them before granting loan. To make proper assessment and appraisal or to seek expert opinion the Bank should have furnished the CIBIL report to the Auditor. Without furnishing relevant documents but expecting the auditor to do the job of deductive, does not fall within the scope and ambit of Auditors profession.
The material relied by the prosecution does not indicates any primafacie evidence against the petitioner to suspect that he had knowledge about the fabricated Statement of account or he had been privy to the alleged conspiracy with the builder, borrower and the Bank officials. The Due Diligence Certificate issued by the petitioner herein based on the documents given by the Bank for his perusal, does not reveal any suppression of facts or dereliction of duty or culpable state of mind to cheat the Bank.
Exemption from CVD - Benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012 - imported goods described as "solar inverter" - whether the description "solar generating system" covers the goods under import i.e. solar inverter? - Revenue has filed the appeal on the main ground that the goods under import cannot be included in the heading "solar power generating system" for the reason that there can be multiple users for such imported goods.
HELD THAT:- Sl. No. 332 of the Notification grants the benefit to non-conventional energy devices or system specified in the list. From the list A, we find that SI. No. 10 of the list covers "solar power generating system". The goods under import which are described as "solar inverter" performs the function of generating electricity when the same is exposed to sunlight, which, falls within the description of "solar power generating system" - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is sustained.
9911796707
