Release of confiscated goods - import of cotton seeds for animal feed - petitioners had made similar imports in the past and cleared the same without any resistance. It appears that this time round, the Ministry of Agriculture got involved and raised objections to the clearance of the cargo on the basis of the Plant Quarantine Order (Regulation of Import into India), 2003 - petitioner claimed release of goods whereas Revenue suggested either re-export of the goods or its destruction - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that in the past, the present petitioners and several other importers had imported cotton seeds in the seed form, but for animal feed consumption. Such import consignments were cleared by the Customs authorities without insisting on the procedure of certification prescribed under Schedule-V. However, we are prepared to proceed on the basis that the Ministry of Agriculture was not at that time taken into confidence and that therefore, such imports of the past would not act as a precedent against the Ministry.
In the present group of cases, the petitioners have imported cotton seeds in seeds form, but claiming that the same are meant only for animal feed consumption. In fact, further contending that the cotton seeds are not capable of being used for sowing purposes. According to the petitioners, the cotton seeds used for animal feed is generally of inferior quality as compared to those used for sowing. The germination rate in the former case would be extremely low making it completely inviable for anybody to use the same for sowing. In fact, due to passage of time, since their import, the germination rate would further go down and therefore, seeds cannot be put to any use other than for animal feed consumption.
Schedule-VII pertains to list of plants, imports of which are permissible on the basis of phytosanitary certificate issued by the exporting country and certificate of fumigation, if required. The conditions of import contained in Schedule-VII themselves are less stringent as compared to those prescribed in Schedule-V. This is otherwise also logical as in the present case, since Schedule-V covers cases where cotton seeds are imported for sowing, which would naturally have much wider impact on plant and insects species of the country. Item-19 on the other hand of Schedule-VII pertains to “Animal feed”, where conditions for importers understandably are less stringent. If one compares Schedule-V with Schedule-VII, in particular Entry No.19 of Schedule-VII, the contentions of respondent No.2 that import of cotton seeds for any purpose other than for sowing is not permissible, cannot be accepted. The cotton seeds imported for sowing would fall under Entry No.7 of Schedule-V. If cotton seeds happen to be animal feed, the same would fall under Entry No.19 of Schedule- VII.
It is open for importer to import cotton seeds for animal feed consumption by complying the conditions contained in Schedule-VII.
Whether the cotton seeds imported for animal feed consumption can be in any form other than crushed /kibbled? - HELD THAT:- Once the cotton seeds are imported, may be claiming them ultimately to be used as animal feed, as long as the same are allowed to be imported in seeds form, there is neither any control of the importer nor any guarantee that the same will not be used for sowing purpose by the ultimate consumers. The concerns of environmental damage or spreading of unknown pests and diseases to the plant and animal species in the country cannot be brushed aside without minute examination and expert’s intervention and reports. However, in the present case, we are neither able to carry out nor would the time permit us to enter into such arena. The clearance of goods would, therefore, have to be on certain conditions, which we propose to impose hereafter - Two conditions to safeguard general interests would be one to ensure that the seeds under import are not capable of being used for sowing and second that even after import, the same are not sold in the seed form and are crushed or kibbled before selling for the ultimate consumption.
The respondents are directed to clear the goods for import after fulfilling certain conditions and after the petitioners paying all duties and taxes and other charges - petition disposed off.
Revision of assessment - TNGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The revision of assessment could have been made if proceedings had been initiated prior to 09.08.2012. In the instant case, even the first of revision notice was issued on 27.03.2013. Thus, the impugned revision of assessment exercising power under Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act is barred by limitation.
Assessment u/s 153A - whether, while making assessment u/s.153A, the Revenue is entitled to interfere with the assessment concluded either u/s 143(1) or u/s 143(3) and not pending at the time of search in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed as a result of search? - HELD THAT:- Total absence of reference to any incriminating material which may have any bearing to impugned additions/disallowances. As a corollary, it is manifest that additions/disallowances have been made without reference to any specific incriminating material/document found as a result of search and seizure action under s.132 of the Act and is based on re-appreciation of facts unconnected to search.
Income-tax return for the relevant assessment years were filed prior to the search in the normal course suo motu incorporating the items of income/expenditure which are subject matter of considerations in the assessment framed u/s 153A. The returns for various assessment orders in question so filed in ordinary course were accepted under s.143(1) of the Act and/or assessed under s.143(3) and as such no assessment was eventually pending on the date of initiation of search which may get abated in consequence of search. Accordingly, various additions/disallowances made by the AO are clearly beyond the scope of authority vested under s.153A of the Act owing to absence of any incriminating material or evidence.
Thus in the absence of any incriminating material/evidence, no addition can be sustained under s.153A is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [ 2016 (7) TMI 911 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Devangi alias Roopa [2017 (2) TMI 724 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Additions/disallowances made without any nexus to incriminating material found, if any, as a result of search operations are not sustainable in the eyes of law in section 153A of the proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Allowable business expenses u/s 37 - wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - amount paid to ‘Lok Foundation’, an entity registered in Mauritius - agreement with Lok Foundation to help them identify certain investors and influence them to participate in Lok II - assessee provided services to the two overseas funds Lok I and Lok II and received advisory fees
Held that:- It is because the services provided by Lok Foundation that the increase in committed funds took place which consequently increased the assessee’s advisory fees from ₹ 4.7 crore in the preceding year to ₹ 9.21 crore in the current year, which is roughly 93%. As against this, the assessee paid only a sum of ₹ 2.88 crore to the Lok Foundation. When the assessee received a composite amount of advisory fee which covered not only the services rendered by it alone, but also by Lok Foundation, by no standard, the payment made for securing services of Lok Foundation can be considered as not incidental to business. But for such services, the assessee would not have earned the revenue of this magnitude. Since such payment is incidental to carrying on of business. We are satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) rightly appreciated the facts in deleting the addition. - Decided against revenue
Identification of wilful defaulters - compliance with RBI Master Circular dated 1.7.2015 defining 'wilful default '- Prayer for quashment of show-cause notice - Loan defaulters Right of representation though an advocate before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) of the Bank - HELD THAT:- Committee has issued the show-cause notice to the petitioners. In response to the said show-cause notice, petitioners have demanded various documents as mentioned in Para 3.6 of their representation. In response to the representation, the Dy. General Manager vide letter dated 29.11.2017 has informed the petitioners that response to the notice under reference will be examined by the appropriate Committee in its meeting to be held on 14.12.2017. Petitioners sought adjournment as they were not in a position to attend the proceedings on 14.12.2017. The Committee adjourned the date twice.
As on today, petitioners are yet to appear before the Committee to pursue their representation in respect of certain documents. It is for the Committee to apply its mind in respect of supply of documents as demanded by the petitioners. The petitioners are required to appear before the Committee on the next date of hearing and as stated in the letter dated 29.11.2017, the Committee will examine the representation of the petitioners, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for by this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
By way of this petition, petitioners also sought direction that they may be allowed to appear before the Committee through Advocate. The petitioners may submita representation before the Committee seeking permission to appear through counsel. If such an application is moved before the Committee, it shall be considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Punjab National Bank V/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1381 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Assessment u/s 153A - disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) and 36(1)(va) - disallowance made by the AO without referring to any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action - HELD THAT:- The scope and jurisdiction of the AO to reassess the total income of the assessee u/s 153A is limited only to the extent of the income disclosed by the incriminating material found and seized during the search and seizure action. AO has reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without making any reference to any incriminating material found. Therefore, the disallowance/addition made by the AO for these 3 assessment years completed u/s 153A is undisputedly not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act. Once, the Assessing Officer has completed the reassessment u/s 153A without any reference to the incriminating material found then, no addition cannot be made to the returned income of the assessee. See KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Imposition of penalty u/s 77 and 78 - tax liability discharged - Held that:- The contention of the appellant is that they applied for Service Tax registration in May, 2010. This fact is not clearly coming from the records of the case. In any event, it shows that the appellant was aware of the levy of service tax which they have not discharged within the stipulated time. Therefore, the submission of the Learned Counsel of the bona fide belief on the part of the assessee cannot be accepted.
The Commissioner (Appeals) had modified the Adjudication Order and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78. In such situation, the benefit under Section 80 of the Act 1994 should be extended in respect of penalties under Section 77(1)(a) and 77(2) as the same are excessive.
The demand of Service Tax along with interest is upheld and penalty under Section 78 is also upheld - rest of penalties set aside - appeal allowed in part.
Levy of service tax - construction services involving works contract - period from 10.09.2004 - Held that:- In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of C.EX. & CUS., Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], these Writ Petitions stand disposed of in terms of the said judgment, and it is open to the individual members of the Association to take appropriate stand, as and when, any action is taken by the Department, in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - petition closed.
Levy of service tax - outdoor catering services - benefit of exemption under N/N. 21/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 - penalties - Held that:- The matter has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee-Appellants’ own case M/S SHIV SAI CATERER & SUPPLIERS AND M/S S.S. SANSTHAN VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2018 (1) TMI 1483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where the Tribunal has confirmed the demand of Service Tax, but by taking a lenient view dropped the penalties.
Demand of service tax upheld - penalties set aside - appeal allowed in part.
Levy of service tax - outdoor catering services - benefit of exemption under N/N. 21/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 - penalties - Held that:- The matter has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee-Appellants’ own case M/S SHIV SAI CATERER & SUPPLIER AND M/S S.S. SANSTHAN VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2016 (8) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the Tribunal has confirmed the demand of Service Tax, but by taking a lenient view dropped the penalties.
Demand of service tax upheld - penalties set aside - appeal allowed in part.
Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that the export turnover was not mentioned in the ST-3 returns for the relevant period - N/N. 27/2012, dated 18-6-2012 - Held that:- Neither in the notification, nor in the Cenvat Credit Rules, there is a condition that the refund sanctioning authority has to make a reference to ST-3 returns for ascertaining the export turnover of services - also, the appellant had given the C.A. certificate and the certification about their FIRC for realized foreign currency. The facts of the export of services and receipt of foreign currency exchange had not been disputed.
By bringing the condition of non-declaration of export turnover in ST-3 returns, the adjudicating authority as well as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has attempted to bring an extraneous condition, which is not prescribed in the notification.
It will be in interest of justice that the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the contested refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - penalty was initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income whereas it was finally imposed for concealment of income - Non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts are that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty was finally imposed for concealment of income.
In our considered view the AO has to specifically point out one of the two limbs on which the penalty is proposed to be levied on the assessee so that the assessee can get full natural justice to respond to the charge for which it is penalised but in the present case this is not so and thus the AO himself was not clear as to which limb penalty was to be imposed. The case of the assessee also gets support from the decision of Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that the AO has to specify the charge on which penalty is being imposed failing which the penalty order cannot be sustained.
In the instant case also the AO initiated penalty on one limb but imposed penalty on the other which is wrong and therefore order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the said decision and we, respectfully following the same, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Payment of non compete fees - nature of expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- When the payment was made for elimination of competition but for non-compete for short period and the assessee have not derived any enduring benefit and no new asset was added the payment of non-compete fee was in the nature of restricting Anita Shirodkar and Arjun Sharma in exercising their skill and experience in the similar field, cannot be treated as capital expenditure. The decision relied by ld. DR for the Revenue in Taparia Tools Ltd. [2003 (1) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT [2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v/s CIT [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] is not applicable on the facts of the present case as the said case relates to proportionate deduction spread over a period on discount of debenture.
Disallowance of license fees - AO disallowed holding it that expenditure is incurred for intangible asset and therefore, constitute a capital expenditure, the assessee itself capitalized the expenditure as an intangible asset in its books of account also confirmed by CIT-A - assessee argued that assessee paid license fees to leverage its strength and to expand business activities in Middle East market for incoming customer to India. The assessee paid the license fee for expanding its existing business in regions outside India - allowable business expenses u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd.[1997 (4) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] held that license fee paid for use of patent and design was on revenue account. The fact of the said case was that under an agreement entered by assessee with a foreign company, the assessee was granted a license to use its patents and designs exclusively in India. The agreement was for duration of 10 years, with the parties having the option to extend or renew the agreement. The foreign company undertook not to surrender its patents without the consent of the assessee and to make available to the assessee any improvements, modifications and additions to designs. It had also undertaken to enable the assessee to defend any counterfeit by others - revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year and the department cannot deny the same. It is only in case that assessee himself want to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuring year, it can be allowed to be spread over provided the principle of matching concept is satisfied. Thus, considering the above discussed factual and legal position, the expenditure incurred by assessee on a license fee is revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee.
Deduction u/s 80HHD - Disallowance on account of Mis-utilization of Tourism Reserve with reference to section 80HHD(4) - AO disallowed holding that purchase of car and coaches are must be purchased for providing service to the Tourist - assessee argued that the assessee has utilized the amount of reserve created in earlier year for the purpose of purchases of coaches and car - HELD THAT:- These issues are against the assessee in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02. DR not disputed the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, the grounds of appeal no.3 and part of ground no.4(iii) to the extent of Mis-utilization of Tourism Reserve is dismissed.
Denial of deduction under section 80HHD in respect of interest income - HELD THAT:- In assessee’s own case for AY 2000-01 & 2001-02 the single issue was restored to the file of AO to decide the claim in accordance with the order of special bench in case of Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT [2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C]. Thus, considering the decision of co-ordinate bench, both the part of this ground of appeal are restored back to the file of AO to decide the same.
Disallowance under section 14A - assessee argued that during the year the assessee received dividend and interest on various investments and investments were made out of own funds and not from borrowed fund - HELD THAT:- Prior to assessment year 2008- 09, when rule 8D was not applicable, Assessing Officer had to enforce provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A and for that purpose, Assessing Officer was duty bound to determine expenditure which had been incurred in relation to income which did not form part of total income under Act by adopting a reasonable basis. Thus, considering the fact of the present case and the fact that prior to AY 2008-09 the Superior Courts and the Tribunal had taken a consistent view that prior to insertion of Rule 8D, a reasonable disallowance is sufficient to meet the requirement of section 14A. Hence, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance @ 2% of the exempt income for disallowance under section 14A, for the year under consideration.
Deduction u/s 80HHD - addition in respect of training fees - whether training fees are derived in the course of business of Tour & Travels of the assessee and ought to be considered for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHD? - CIT(A) held that training fees form part of business income and has been assessed by AO under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession” and therefore, said income is eligible deduction under section 80HHD - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT vs. Eastern International Hotels [2005 (11) TMI 180 - ITAT BOMBAY-I] held that where interest income received by assessee had been assessed under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession” same cannot be treated as non-business income for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHD of the Act. The co-ordinate bench relied upon the decision of Alfa Lavel India Ltd.[2003 (9) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] on contest of interpretation of section 80HHC holding that where the AO had assessed interest received by assessee as a part of business profit under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession”, he cannot treat the said amount as “Income from Other Sources” so as to exclude it from the business profit. Thus, in view of the above factual and legal discussion, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A).
Addition of retention money as written back claimed as deduction under section 80HHD - retention money is not derived from the business activity of the assessee - HELD THAT:- AO has assessed the said amount under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession”. We have further noted that the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT vs. Eastern International Hotels (supra) held that where interest income received by assessee had been assessed under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession” same cannot be treated as non-business income for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHD of the Act. The co-ordinate bench relied upon the decision of Alfa Lavel India Ltd. (supra) on contest of interpretation of section 80HHC holding that where the AO had assessed interest received by assessee as a part of business profit under the head “Profit & Gain from Business and Profession”, he cannot treat the said amount as “Income from Other Sources” so as to exclude it from the business profit. Thus, in view of the above factual and legal discussion, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A).
Deduction under section 80HHD in respect of foreign exchange fluctuation - AO disallowed the deduction on gain from foreign exchange fluctuation holding that it does not emanate from the services provided by the assessee to foreign tourist - CIT(A) allowed the deduction holding that foreign exchange gain forms part and partial of foreign exchange sale proceed and cannot be excluded while computing deduction under section 80HHD - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Syntel Limited [2009 (12) TMI 689 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that when assessee received sale consideration in dollars, which were to receive on date of sale. But on account of fluctuation in conversion rate, the assessee received more in term of Rupee. In Rachana Udyog (2010 (1) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), held that exchange rate difference is allowable deduction under section 80IB of the Act which is directly related to the transaction involving the export of goods of eligible industrial undertaking.
Exclusion of receipts passed onto other hoteliers and receipts being unrealized tour receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD - HELD THAT:- By following the decision of Lotus Trans Travels [2010 (12) TMI 126 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that for the amounts, the assessee has issued certificate in Form 10CCAC cannot be treated as a receipt for the purpose of total business and accordingly directed the AO to exclude the receipt of ₹ 31,30,99,313/- passed on by the assessee to other hotel and travel agent. For second/other receipt of ₹ 66,39,877/- it was held that the said amount of foreign currency realized after 30.09.2009 have not entered the numerator i.e. receipt earned by assessee from rendering service to foreign tourist which would not enter the denominator in the formula and directed the AO to exclude the same. We have noted that finding of ld. CIT(A) in accordance with Explanation 1 to sub-section (2), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 80HHD. No contrary material is brought to our notice to take any contrary view
Deduction u/s 80IA(4) - developed, operated and was to transfer the project in agreement with the constitutional body - company has entered into an agreement with GSRDC - transfer the project in agreement with the constitutional body i.e. an agency as defined under section 2(e) of the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2017 (10) TMI 1314 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] assessee has developed, operated and was to transfer the project in agreement with the constitutional body i.e. an agency as defined under section 2(e) of the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999 under the Gujarat Development Act and also in direct and explicit agreement and approval of Gujarat government which has given land and allowed to collect toll fee.
Assessee company fulfills the conditions as required under section 80IA(4) including Section 80IA(4)(i)(b) and has developed, operated and was to transfer the infrastructure facility and therefore, is eligible for the deduction claimed under the section. GSRDC is an extended arms of the Gujarat State and is entitle to eligible for deduction - Decided against revenue
The following question of law arises for consideration:-
“(1) Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in quashing the assessment on the ground that it was not based upon a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
Valuation - Technical Inspection and Certification Service - inclusion of value of X-ray films and certain charges (unit charges and transportation charges) in assessable value - N/N. 12/2003-S.T. - second SCN - time limitation - penalty - Held that:- The invoices submitted though show the film as well as certain unit charges, there is no evidence of sale of the films to the client. The claim of the appellant that charges for film shown separately should satisfy the condition of N/N. 12/2003 is not tenable. In the absence of any evidence to show that there were sale of goods in the provision of service, N/N. 12/2003 cannot be applied - Similarly, the claim of reimbursable expenses on travel and stay of staff during the course of rendering service cannot be accepted on the face value as the invoices only show unit charges.
Time Limitation - Held that:- There were two show cause notices invoking extended period. The second notice cannot invoke the extended period as the issue of tax liability and valuation should have been examined comprehensively when the matter was investigated by the officers when recording in the first notice - the extended period of limitation involved in the second notice is not sustainable.
Penalty - Held that:- Agreeing with the appellant that the issue of valuation is taken from the documents and invoices maintained by the appellant and there is no case for deliberate suppression of material facts in the present case, accordingly, the penalty also is not liable to be sustained.
The tax liability confirmed against the appellant shall be restricted to the normal period with no penalty - appeal allowed in part.
Levy of Excise duty - intermediate goods - trimmed/untrimmed sheet/circles of brass manufactured by the respondent intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts or utensils - Held that:- We have gone through Notification No. 5/2006 and find that at Sr. No. 41, goods falling under Chapter heading No. 7409 other than Copper attracted Nil rate of duty whereas under Sr. No. 42 trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of Copper attract ₹ 3500/- per MT as Central Excise duty - Therefore, we find that insofar as the sheets and circles made of Brass are concerned both the Notification Nos. 5/2006 and 3/2001 are pari materia and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Refund claim - first Appellate Authority has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue - Held that:- The First Appellate Authority has recorded a passing remark that "refund being rejected on two grounds is not legally tenable". In my opinion, this passing remark without giving any reason seems to be inappropriate - the adjudicating authority should reconsider the entire issue of the refund and pass an order deciding the issue on the allegations made in the show cause notice - appeal allowed by way of remand.
100% EOU - non-fulfillment of export obligation - Net Foreign Exchange Performance - appellant has complied the export obligation during the extended period - Held that:- The original period of five years was extended by the competent authority for another five years and during the extended period the appellant has fulfilled its obligation and was declared as the positive NFEP earner. To this effect necessary certificate was issued by the Development Commissioner, Noida which was neither rebutted nor contravened by the departmental authority. Hence, in this regard the finding in the impugned order appears reasonable - decided against Revenue.
Demand of duty and penalty - Held that:- It appears that appellant has not deposited the duty and penalty. They have not contested the amount of duty which was paid on the raw material. Hence, in the circumstances, the penalty appears reasonable. So, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. T
9911796707
