|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 848 Records
-
2010 (10) TMI 912
Whether the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("the AAIFR") was justified in appointing the State Bank of Mysore as the operating agency?
Held that:- When there is no other scope of interference that could be made by the operating agency in regard to the work to be carried out by the independent chartered accountants while holding the special investigative audit, we do not find any prejudice being caused to the petitioner in the said exercise. Therefore, when statutorily the BIFR as well as the AAIFR are entitled to appoint the operating agency from among one of the notified institutions of the BIFR and the State Bank of Mysore though one of the secured creditors is a notified institution of the BIFR and inasmuch as we do not find any scope for interference in regard to the special investigative audit to be held by the chartered accountants to be chosen at the instance of the petitioner, there is no scope to hold that there is even a remote chance or likelihood of any bias or prejudice being caused to the petitioner. Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 911
Scheme of amalgamation - Held that:- The proposed scheme is not just, fair and reasonable, but is prejudicial to public interest. The revival plan submitted by the petitioners, makes it obvious that the proposed scheme is not financially viable, since it is structured on many ifs and buts and presumptions and surmises. Therefore, the court cannot permit consciously, the transfusion of the blood of several members of the public, to a patient who has suffered multiple organ failure and various other ailments and whose chances of survival depends only on miracles. Hence, both these petitions are dismissed
-
2010 (10) TMI 910
Winding up petition - Held that:- If a company is unable to produce or maintain its records it is a fit ground to order its winding up on just and equitable grounds. Further, the above conduct of the company shows they are somewhat lacking in commercial morality, which is another reason to order winding up on just and equitable grounds as discussed at page 3693 of the 16th edition, 2006 reprint of Ramaiya on Guide to the Companies Act.
In any event, ₹ 2,04,360 is a very reasonable claim for occupation of the premises in question. This sum is prima facie payable by the company to the petitioning creditor.In the facts and circumstances above, I would admit the winding up application on just and equitable grounds and also on the ground that the company is prima facie unable to pay the sum of ₹ 2,04,360. However, I note that the balance claim of the petitioning creditor, has to be established in a suit.
Therefore, this winding up application is admitted. The application should be advertised once in any English newspaper having circulation of over 50,000 copies in West Bengal and any Bengali newspaper of like circulation. Such advertisement should be made within four weeks from date. Publication in the Official Gazette is dispensed with. List this application five weeks hence.
-
2010 (10) TMI 909
Interlineation – Whether interlineation made without attestation is valid – Appellant purchased the land for ₹ 10,000/- on 23/04/1986 and on very next day sold this land for ₹ 10,000/- – Subsequently appellant served a legal notice upon the respondent in the year 1991-1992 demanding the re-conveyance of the said land on the ground that registered sale deed executed dated 24th April, 1986 was a conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to repurchase the land for the same consideration of ₹ 10,000/- within a period of ten years – Appellant had been made interlineation at four places in the sale deed. Word Avadhi had been mentioned at three places in the margin of the sale deed. And The appellant did not attest the said word by putting his signatures at the time of registration – Held that:- Attestation certifies the genuineness of the document. Attestation and execution are different acts, one following the other. Execution includes delivery and signing of the document in the presence of the witnesses and also the whole series of acts or formalities which are necessary to render the document valid. Attestation of sale deed is imperative. In this case animus to attestation remain totally absent.
Appellant has made interlineations after the document stood executed. The said additions were made without the consent and knowledge of the respondent. In fact the mind of the respondent did not actuate with his hand while putting his thumb impression on the said sale deed at the time of registration. Thus, the additions so made by the appellant cannot be binding on the respondent. The additions in question are surrounded by the suspicious circumstances of a grave nature and, therefore, the same are required to be ignored. The contract being severable, the terms of contract included by these additions being void, cannot be taken note of – Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 908
The word Commercial qualifies the commercial coaching or training centre
The issues that arise for consideration in the present appeal are similar with that of the aforesaid appeals which was decided by Three Judges Bench of this Court. While allowing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chennai, the Three Judges referred to the newly inserted Explanation in Section 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act, 2010 which was made effective from 1st of July, 2003?
-
2010 (10) TMI 907
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed a special petition as special leave petitions against relied upon judgments were previously dismissed on 6th July, 2009 and 14th December, 2009.
-
2010 (10) TMI 906
Issues:
1. Enhanced assessment under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act.
2. Claim of deduction under sections 80-IB and 80HHC independently on gross profit.
Issue 1: Enhanced assessment under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal arose from an order enhancing the assessment by withdrawing the deduction allowed under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. The appellant, engaged in dehydration of onions, fruits, and vegetables, claimed the deduction under section 80-IB. However, the CIT(A) held that dehydration of onions did not constitute manufacturing or production of articles as required by section 80-IB. The appellant contended that it had been allowed the deduction in previous years and should be eligible in the current year as well. The Tribunal noted that conditions for deduction under section 80-IB should be examined in the initial year of the claim and followed consistently in subsequent years. Relying on case law, the Tribunal held that once deduction is allowed in the first year, it cannot be denied in subsequent years on the same ground. Consequently, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was set aside.
Issue 2: Claim of deduction under sections 80-IB and 80HHC independently on gross profit:
The appellant sought a deduction under sections 80-IB and 80HHC independently on the gross profit. However, the Tribunal referenced a previous decision where it was held that restrictions on deductions under section 80-IA(9) applied to all deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent should be interpreted based on clear statutory language, and restrictions must be applied as specified. Referring to relevant case law and a circular, the Tribunal concluded that relief under section 80-IA should be deducted from profits before computing relief under section 80HHC. Citing precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for deduction under both sections independently.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning the enhanced assessment under section 80-IB but dismissing the claim for deduction under sections 80-IB and 80HHC independently on gross profit.
-
2010 (10) TMI 905
Undisclosed income - Third member appointment - difference between the ld' JM and the ld' AM - Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - genuineness of the gift not proved - Id. J.M. deleted the addition made u/s 68 while ld. A.M. as opinied that the additions in question have been correctly made by the Assessing Officer and rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) - Whether the lower authorities were justified in considering the amount claimed to have been received as gift by the respective assessees as their income from undisclosed sources? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee maintains no books of account and that is why the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has also written against the method of account as ‘No A/cs’. It is an established position that existence of books of account maintained by the assessee is a condition precedent for addition under section 68. In the case of the assessee, no such books having been maintained, there is no legal scope to intervene provisions of section 68 and as such, in my opinion, the ld. J.M. has rightly deleted the addition made on such premise.
For arriving at the conclusion that the gift was not genuine and the same was undisclosed income of the assessee, the department ought to have brought on record evidence for such specific finding. Here in this case the department could not bring on record any evidence except alleging on presumption and suspicion that the gifts were bogus and represented assessee’s undisclosed income. In these circumstances, this observation of the department, which was acceded to by the ld. A.M., without any conclusive material cannot lead to the inference that the amount was not gift but undisclosed income of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedi & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1998 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] and decision of Currency Investment Co. Ltd. [1999 (6) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that when the assessee has disclosed the identity of the parties from whom it purchased shares and to whom it sold the shares, genuineness of the transaction cannot be denied merely because the assessee could not produce the brokers through whom the share were sold.
One of the reasons the ld. A.M. took for endorsing the action of the revenue authorities was that summons issued were not complied and neither the parties appeared for examination before the Assessing Officer, nor were they produced by the assessee. The ITAT, Gauhati Bench in the case of India Tyre House [2001 (6) TMI 178 - ITAT GAUHATI] has held that the assessee cannot be asked to do something which is beyond its control; assessee has got no legal power to enforce the attendance of his creditors before the Assessing Officer and as such addition on the ground that he had not produced creditors cannot be sustained.
Assessee has furnished the copies of Acknowledgement of IT returns for assessment year 2002-03 of all the donors along with challans evidencing payments of tax, computation of income, balance sheet, declaration confirming the gift, etc., in support of her getting the gifts from the respective donors, which are already on record - It is also not disputed that all the donors have filed their returns of income for assessment year 2002-03 and paid taxes accordingly. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the assessee that no proceedings in regard to these returns have been initiated by the department and, therefore, the same are to be considered as accepted in terms of section 143(1)
Thus the lower authorities were not justified in stating that the gifts were undisclosed income of the assessee, which was acceded to by ld. A.M.
Third member as concurred with the proposed order of ld. J.M. on the common question referred to him. In view of the above, as per majority view, the appeals of the assessees on the issue referred to the ld. Third Member stand allowed
-
2010 (10) TMI 904
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of section 194-I and section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the context of non-deduction of TDS on payments made for the right to advertise by exhibiting hoardings & kiosks on land belonging to Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA).
Issue 1: Applicability of section 194-I for TDS on payments to AUDA:
The appeal by the assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) confirming the Assessing Officer's decision to consider the assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS under section 194-I on payments made to AUDA. The assessee argued that the license agreement with AUDA did not involve the use of land or building, thus section 194-I should not apply. However, the CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision based on Circular No. 715 dated 8-8-1995, stating that the assessee had made payments to AUDA for using their place for advertisement boards, thereby attracting TDS liability under section 194-I.
Issue 2: Applicability of section 194C for advertisement agreements:
The assessee contended that section 194C, not section 194-I, should apply as there was no agreement for the use of land or building with AUDA, but only display rights were granted. The assessee relied on a decision regarding the commercial exploitation of display rights. The Tribunal found that the charges paid were for commercial exploitation of display rights, not for the use of land or building, thus holding that section 194C was more appropriate. The Tribunal concluded that the payments made by the assessee to AUDA fell under section 194C for advertisement agreements, requiring TDS to be made accordingly.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that the provisions of section 194C were applicable in the case of advertisement agreements with AUDA for displaying hoardings, and TDS should have been deducted accordingly. The judgment clarified the distinction between sections 194-I and 194C based on the nature of the payments made for commercial exploitation of display rights.
-
2010 (10) TMI 903
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on tanning expenses.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on measurement charges.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on tanning expenses:
The assessee, engaged in trading sheep and goat skins, made payments totaling Rs. 40,40,679 to various tanners for tanning services without deducting tax at source as specified under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under Section 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that the nature of the job required the use of material and labor, and thus, TDS was mandatory. The assessee contended that only 30% of the payment was for tanning services, while 70% was for materials used, relying on Circular No. 13/2006. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting that the payments were made under composite contracts and the assessee's conduct indicated no segregation of expenses.
Upon appeal, the ITAT observed that the original bills from the tanners were composite and no split-up bills were presented before the authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the contracts were composite in nature and the assessee's attempt to bifurcate the payments was an afterthought to avoid the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowance was upheld, dismissing the assessee's ground.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on measurement charges:
The assessee paid Rs. 1,43,178 to Usman Sheriff for measuring charges using measurement machines without deducting tax under Section 194C. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the payment was for the use of machinery, which fell under Section 194(i) effective from 13-7-2006. The CIT(A) aggregated the payments for the entire year to determine the applicability of TDS.
The ITAT, however, noted that the amendment to Section 194(i) widening the scope to include machinery was effective from 13-7-2006. Payments made after this date amounted to Rs. 1,08,000, which was below the threshold of Rs. 1,20,000, exempting the assessee from TDS obligations. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 1,43,178 was deleted, allowing the assessee's ground.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit:
The assessee made cash payments of Rs. 2,50,000 to three parties for the purchase of raw hides and skins. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the payment, amounting to Rs. 50,000, under Section 40A(3) as the payments exceeded the prescribed limit. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the plea of exemption under Rule 6DD(e)(ii) was not raised before the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT observed that the payments were for the purchase of raw hides and skins, which fell under the exemption provided by Rule 6DD(e)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, applicable before its substitution on 9-11-2006. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider this aspect despite having plenary powers. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted, allowing the assessee's ground.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT upholding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for tanning expenses but deleting the disallowances under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) for measurement charges and cash payments, respectively.
-
2010 (10) TMI 902
TP Adjustment - additional income determined by Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO') in proceedings concluded u/s.92CA - outstanding receivables - TPO jurisdiction to examine the issue of outstanding receivables and non-charging of interest thereon - TPO found that by parking this huge amount at the disposal of Homestar USA, the AE, the assessee is depriving the funds otherwise available in its hands and aversely affecting the profitability of the assessee - assessee’s explanation before the TPO was that the delay in collecting the receivables was due to the difference in the billing patterns followed by Logix India and Homestar USA - Revenue is aggrieved on the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) that LIBOR/US FED rate should be taken as the interest-rate.
HELD THAT:- When a file is referred to TPO for the purpose of examining the matter relating to ALP, the assessing authority is referring the entire gamut of international transactions for the consideration of the TPO. The purpose of an ALP analysis itself is in the larger context of anti-evasion measures.
In the present case, the outstanding balance of receivables did not generate out of domestic transactions. Those receivables did generate from international transactions carried out by the assessee with its AE in USA. Therefore, there is no basis in arguing that the receivables are strange to the international transactions and, therefore, those receivables would not come under the purview of the jurisdiction of the TPO. The outstanding receivables is the financial result of the international transactions concluded by the assessee company with AE in USA and, therefore, the income effect arising, if any, to that outstanding receivables is very much a relevant aspect of ALP. Therefore, as a legal proposition we hold that the TPO is having the jurisdiction to examine the issue of outstanding receivables and non-charging of interest thereon.
Additional income to be added in the present case as part of ALP analysis - What is made in an analysis of ALP is the evaluation of the said financial impact. On one side the pricing adopted by the assessee for all its international transactions with its AE is comparable and the ALP test is satisfied. To that extent in the present case, the TPO has accepted the position reported by the assessee company. But in spite of the fact that on one aspect of the transaction, the assessee has complied with the ALP parameters, on another side the assessee has parked huge amount of funds for long period with its AE in USA.
Only for the reason that the pricing of international transactions has been accepted for ALP test, it is not possible to hold that the TPO should not go into this question of parking of funds with its AE in USA. If the funds are repatriated into India on ordinary within the normal period, the assessee would have been in a position to pay all its working capital loan or other loans, if any, and/or earning some income from an appropriate investment of those repatriated funds. This potential loss is definitely a factor to be considered while evaluating the financial impact of the international transactions concluded by the assessee with its AE in USA. Therefore, we agree with the arguments of the Revenue and uphold the finding of the TPO that an additional income is to be added in the present case as part of ALP analysis.
Reasonable period may be provided as interest-free period and no interest be calculated for such interest-free period - Interest is to be calculated for the period overflowing the interest-free period. This direction is just and proper. Upheld.
ALP interest may be calculated after providing appropriate mark-up for the nature of loan, term of loan, credit standing of the AE- Homestar USA, security of loan etc - The funds parked with Homestar USA is not in the nature of a loan with all the legal features of a loan transaction. This is in fact parking of funds with the AE by not collecting the receivables within the normal period. Therefore, the direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) which are applicable to formal loans cannot be made applicable to the present case. As far as the present case is concerned, those directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) are more academic in nature. Therefore, all those directions are vacated.
Adopt LIBOR/US-FED rate for calculating the interest - As per CIT(A) ALP factor of interest is to be computed with reference to the benefit that would have been earned by the AE in USA. On the other hand, in calculating the cost factors of the assessee in India, it is more appropriate to consider the potential loss suffered by the assessee in India by not bringing the receivables within the normal period. In fact, the said potential loss of the assessee in India is the ALP factor which contributes to the additional income attributable to the assessee. Therefore, instead of the US rate, the TPO is justified in adopting the Indian rate.
Adopting the Indian rate - As it is not proper to rely on PLR of the State Bank of India. This is because if the funds were brought in time and those funds were properly deployed, the assessee company may earn an income at the maximum rate applicable to deposits and not at the rate applicable to loans. Therefore, we vacate the direction of the TPO to adopt the PLR rate of 10.25%. Instead we find it appropriate to adopt a reasonable rate that would be available to the assessee on short-term deposits.
ALP interest rate determination - As held that the period chargeable to interest has to be recomputed and a reasonable deposit rate has to be applied for calculating the interest. Taking into consideration all aspects of the case like interest-free period and piece-meal remittance of the receivables, we fix the ALP interest rate at 5% and direct the AO to compute the additional income at the rate of 5% on Rs. 5,52,24,261 as against 10.25% adopted by the AO.
-
2010 (10) TMI 901
Revision applications - rebate claim - assessee claimed the rebate, which is an export entitlement, has not produced any bill of export as required under the SEZ rules and also as per Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 – Held that:- procedural infractions of notifications/circulars should be condoned if exports have really taken place and the law is settled that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses, rebate allowed, Revision applications are rejected
-
2010 (10) TMI 900
Writ petition - summons issued by the Excise authorities - held that:- An Excise officer issuing summons to appear with records cannot be said to be deprivation of liberty of an individual. This Court do not find any acceptable legal ground raised in the writ petition. It can be presumed that it was for egoistic reasons and not on any concrete legal foundation. If the petitioner is unfamiliar to explain the accounts maintained by them, it is always open to them to take along a person who is well versed with their accounts to explain to the officer his queries. But on that ground they cannot seek to dispense with their personal appearances. If the authority wants to make further clarification, they can always question the petitioners, who were responsible in running the business. This Court do not find any legal injuries were suffered by the petitioners by the receipt of the summons so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-
2010 (10) TMI 899
Exemption - assessee claimed exemption from payment of sales tax - According to the assessee, its investment in plant and machinery in its unit during the period from April 1, 1995 to April 30, 1995 and from May 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996 was less than Rs. 5 lakhs and accordingly, it was entitled to get the tax exemption under rule 3(116) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 – Held that:- West Bengal State Government did not by Notification No. 1428-FT dated May 26, 1994, extend the exemption thereunder to small-scale industrial units which had employed more than Rs. 5 lakhs in investment in plant and machinery although the depreciated value thereof may be less than Rs. 5 lakhs, exemption not available Interest - tax due on the basis of quarterly return was not paid as required by sub-section (3) and the appellant was, therefore, liable to pay interest on the amount of tax in respect of which default was committed at the rate prescribed in sub-section (2) from the last date prescribed for filing quarterly return under the Act up to the date of payment, no merit in this appeal, hereby rejected
-
2010 (10) TMI 896
EPCG Scheme - import of second-hand machinery - petitioner’s application for grant of licence under EPCG scheme rejected - EPCG licence on provisional basis issued and called for the petitioner to submit an undertaking to the effect that, in the event of the authority at the Headquarters/1st respondent not concurring with the decision to allow import of second-hand capital goods of Indian origin under EPCG Scheme, the petitioner would pay 100% of duty saved amount together with 15% interest thereon from the date of import of capital goods - petitioner willingly submitted an undertaking to that effect - higher authorities viz., Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, declined for grant of EPCG licence as it goes contra to the policy circulars of the Government and the clarifications contained therein - letter, requesting the petitioner to pay duty with 15% interest immediately to the customs authorities and to furnish the copy of challan – Held that:- petitioner-firm ought to have instructed the Bank to allow the Customs Department to invoke the bank guarantee. The petitioner, instead of doing so, seemingly with a sole view to evade the duty payable to the Exchequer, initiated the present proceedings invoking the writ jurisdiction. This Court does not deem it just and proper to go into the validity or otherwise of the impugned order for the mere reason that the petitioner-firm cannot even challenge the same as they themselves satisfied over grant of a provisional EPCG Licence with a clear written undertaking on their part in a stamp paper as mentioned above and subsequently enjoyed the benefits of the provisional EPCG licence by clearing the imported goods. Under such circumstances, the Department is perfectly justified in invoking the Bank Guarantee so as to recover the customs duty due from the petitioner after rejection of their request by the Headquarters, Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits
-
2010 (10) TMI 894
Order passed without giving opportunity to being heard - no proper notice was served upon the respondent before passing the order-in-original by the Adjudicating Authority - Commissioner (Appeal) remitted the case back to the Adjudicating Authority to give opportunity to the respondent-assessee and pass fresh orders - Held that:- Once the finding is recorded that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was in violation of principle of natural justice, such an order would be nullity in law, no reason to interfere with the impugned order - respondent had no opportunity to even reply to the show cause notice and in the absence of any material before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was not possible for Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits, hence the appeal is dismissed, pending applications are also disposed of.
-
2010 (10) TMI 893
Job work - appellant was manufacturing and clearing the product without payment of Central Excise duty and without observing any central excise formalities - whether the learned Commissioner was correct in allowing the benefit of Modvat credit to the respondents in this case or not based upon Chartered Accountant’s certificate only - duty liability was worked out on the basis of a Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and the Modvat eligibility was arrived at based on the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and verification about duty paid nature of the raw material/packing material and the quantum of excise duty credit available thereon were not done - in the absence of any challenge to Chartered Accountant’s Certificate, and any contrary evidence to suggest that the inputs/raw material which were consumed by the assessee were not duty paid, order is correct and legal. Appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is rejected
-
2010 (10) TMI 890
Whether deduction under Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2) has to be allowed first and the other deductions falling under Chapter VI-A namely, Section 80HH and Section 80-I should be granted thereafter with reference to net income so obtained after first granting deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2) of the Act - assessee is entitled to get deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I before providing for deduction under Section 35(2), which was accepted by the Tribunal - Held that:- Tribunal went wrong in allowing deduction under section 80HH and Section 80-I from the gross total income before granting deduction under section 35(2) of the Act, deduction under Section 35(2) has to be first allowed in the computation of business income as a whole and thereafter deduction under Section 80HH and Section 80-I have to be granted only from the net income attributable to the eligible industrial unit, appeals allowed by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and direct the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment as stated above.
-
2010 (10) TMI 889
Writ Petition - recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23-3-07, order was communicated to it on 27-7-09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority - neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order - There is no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage, in case the petitioner seeks any interim relief or wants to deposit the amount due, it can approach the Tribunal, where the matter is pending, writ petition is dismissed
-
2010 (10) TMI 886
Revision application - Rebate claim denied as required permission not undertaken - Held that:- As applicant has failed to fulfill the condition by not getting the required permission from the jurisdictional Commissioner Central Excise for exporting the goods beyond a period of six months, so rebate claims cannot be sanctioned as this is a substantial/mandatory requirement. Since the Commissioner of Central Excise has not granted extension of six months time period for export of goods, the mandatory requirement of exported goods within 6 months from the date on which goods were cleared from factory of manufacture is not fulfilled, rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant and the applicants appeal was rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revision application is rejected being devoid of merit.
............
|
9911796707
