|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 658 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 327
Issues:
Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000.
Analysis:
The appeal challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Authorized Representative argued that the notice was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which was in violation of section 151(2) of the Act. The Representative relied on a decision by the Allahabad High Court to support the claim that the notice was not valid. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the notice was valid as it was issued after necessary satisfaction of the Additional CIT.
The Tribunal carefully examined the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and considered the relevant provisions of section 151(2) along with the Allahabad High Court decision. It noted that the original return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiration of four years from the assessment year. Section 151 of the Act specifies the competent authority for sanction to issue such a notice. Since there was no prior assessment under section 143(3) or section 147, section 151(2) was deemed relevant in this case.
Referring to the Allahabad High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that the notice under section 148 could only be issued by an officer of the rank of Joint CIT after being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. It highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed manner when exercising powers under the Act, as established by the Supreme Court in previous cases. Noting that the notice was issued by the ITO and not by the Joint CIT or Additional CIT as required, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was not valid. Consequently, the assessment order based on an invalid notice was deemed invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and quashing the assessment order due to the invalidity of the notice. Since the assessment order was nullified, further adjudication of other grounds was deemed unnecessary, resulting in the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
-
2007 (11) TMI 326
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT's initiation of proceedings u/s 263.
2. Legality and sustainability of CIT's directions to the Assessing Officer.
3. Basis and material for CIT's assumption that the block assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
Summary:
1. Justification of CIT's initiation of proceedings u/s 263:
The sole issue for consideration was whether the CIT was justified in setting aside the block assessment by invoking section 263 and directing the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. The CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, alleging that the block assessment order dated 18-3-2005 was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The CIT was dissatisfied with the undisclosed income determined from soda sales, which was Rs. 17,71,528 as admitted by the assessee.
2. Legality and sustainability of CIT's directions to the Assessing Officer:
The CIT directed the Assessing Officer "to take suitable action to re-compute the undisclosed income earned by the assessee from 'suppression of income from Soda Sales' after verifying the genuineness of the various claims put forward by the assessee." The assessee argued that this direction was illegal and unsustainable, as it amounted to a roving enquiry without any material basis.
3. Basis and material for CIT's assumption that the block assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue:
The CIT noted that during the search action u/s 132, it was found that the assessee was showing purchases of soda from an outside agency, whereas the soda was actually manufactured "in house" by an employee. The CIT believed that the Assessing Officer did not examine the manufacturing cost of soda amounting to Rs. 71,12,809 and thus considered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible and reasonable view based on the material available, and merely because the CIT did not agree with this view, it did not render the order erroneous.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT had exceeded his powers as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 was canceled.
-
2007 (11) TMI 325
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of bank interest of Rs. 3,72,10,370.
2. Allowability of provision for sugarcane price of Rs. 29,72,592.
3. Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Bank Interest of Rs. 3,72,10,370:
The primary issue was whether the bank interest claimed by the assessee was an ascertained liability or a contingent liability. The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar, claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,72,10,370 as interest payable to the Bank of India. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, stating it was shown as a contingent liability in the annual report and had not crystallized during the year. The CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the AO for verification. The AO, upon remand, maintained the disallowance, arguing that the interest was not debited to the assessee's account and the liability had not crystallized. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating the liability was finalized in 1991 when the BIFR passed an order waiving the interest.
The Tribunal, however, disagreed with the AO and CIT(A), noting that the bank had issued letters demanding the payment of interest, which crystallized the liability during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that the interest liability had crystallized when the bank issued the letters and not when the BIFR passed the order. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction of the entire amount during the relevant assessment year.
2. Allowability of Provision for Sugarcane Price of Rs. 29,72,592:
The AO disallowed the provision for sugarcane price, stating it would be allowable in the year of actual payment. The assessee argued that the provision pertained to the period from 1-10-1988 to 31-3-1989 and was erroneously shown as an earlier period expense. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the claim and allow it if it pertained to the relevant year. The AO rejected the claim, but the CIT(A), upon considering additional evidence, allowed the provision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the provision was made for the relevant assessment year and there was no discrepancy in the documents. The Tribunal found no violation of rule 46A and affirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the provision.
3. Disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act:
The AO disallowed Rs. 11,51,114 under section 37(1), which included a disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000 out of sundry expenses and 15% of the remaining balance of expenses. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000 as per his earlier order, deleting the balance of Rs. 9,51,114.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the total disallowance should be restricted to Rs. 2,00,000 as directed by the CIT(A) in his earlier order. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s interpretation correct and upheld the deletion of the balance disallowance.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the deduction of bank interest and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the provision for sugarcane price and the disallowance under section 37(1). The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 324
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of receipt from US Vitamins Ltd.
2. Addition of interest on overdue sundry debtors.
3. Disallowance of interest on deposit given to the Managing Director.
4. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds used for acquiring property.
5. Ad hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Receipt from US Vitamins Ltd.:
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 6 crores received by the assessee from US Vitamins Ltd. for transferring marketing information and clinical data and agreeing to a non-compete clause was a capital or revenue receipt. The assessee argued it was a capital receipt, citing several judgments including Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) considered it a revenue receipt, emphasizing that the agreement was not for a one-time complete transfer but for a limited period and that the assessee's trading structure remained unaffected. The Tribunal concluded that the imparting of marketing information for a limited period did not amount to a transfer of a capital asset and was therefore a revenue receipt. However, the payment related to the non-compete clause was deemed a capital receipt, as it resulted in a loss of source of income for five years. The case was remitted to the AO to bifurcate and apportion the composite receipt accordingly.
2. Addition of Interest on Overdue Sundry Debtors:
The assessee had switched from the mercantile system to the cash system of accounting for interest on overdue sundry debtors, leading to a loss of Rs. 1,70,22,528. The AO added this amount back, considering the change inconsistent. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that post-amendment of section 145, only mercantile or cash systems could be followed, and hybrid systems were not permissible. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that different methods for different parts of income were not allowed under the amended provisions.
3. Disallowance of Interest on Deposit Given to the Managing Director:
The assessee had given an interest-free deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs to the Managing Director for providing rent-free accommodation. The AO disallowed the interest on this deposit, but the CIT(A) allowed it for Rs. 30 lakhs, disallowing the interest on the remaining Rs. 45 lakhs. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the entire interest deduction.
4. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Funds Used for Acquiring Property:
The assessee had capitalized the interest on borrowed funds used to acquire property but claimed it as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The AO disallowed this, but the CIT(A) allowed it, stating that capitalization did not change the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing its previous ruling in the assessee's favor for the earlier assessment year.
5. Ad hoc Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses:
The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000 out of total miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 5,35,969. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the AO had not pointed out any defects and the accounts were audited. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the deletion.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the issues of non-compete fee, interest on deposit to the Managing Director, and interest on borrowed funds for property acquisition. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on the nature of receipt and ad hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
-
2007 (11) TMI 322
Depreciable Assets - Setting off of loss on sale of flat (deemed short-term capital gain) - Addition on lease equalization - Cost of acquisition of the shares sold by the assessee company during the impugned assessment year which was acquired by it on purchase from the holding company? - Determination of indexed cost - Treatment of whole lease rent - Disallowance of interest u/s 14A - Computation of book profit u/s 115JA.
Depreciable Assets - Setting off of loss on sale of flat (deemed short-term capital gain) - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of the assessee under s. 32(1)(iii) of the Act because assessee has not written off the deficiencies in its books of account. During the course of hearing nothing is placed on behalf of the assessee in this regard. He has simply harped upon that its case is covered by s. 50 of the Act and the capital gain includes capital loss whereas s. 50 deals only with those types of cases where the profit accrued, to the assessee on transfer of block of assets. Thus, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly we confirm his order.
Addition on lease equalization - difference between annual lease charge (i.e. lease rental net of finance charge) and depreciation is debited/credited to the annual lease equalization account in the P&L a/c and credited to the lease terminal adjustment account. The balance outstanding in the lease terminal adjustment account is adjusted in the net book value of the leased asset in the balance sheet. This method of accounting is accepted by the AO in earlier years.
HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, the ld DR could not explain how the profit of the assessee is being affected by passing these journal entries. Since the assessee has been following this method of accounting for the last so many years, this method cannot be disturbed in the impugned year without establishing that by passing these journal entries the profit of the assessee is being affected. We, therefore, find no merit in this disallowance. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition.
Determination of indexed cost in respect of shares of the IL&FS - The cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was not accepted by the Revenue authorities and according to them it is not a case of normal transfer of capital asset by a holding company to a subsidiary company as envisaged in s. 47(iv) of the Act.
Cost of acquisition of the shares sold by the assessee company during the impugned assessment year which was acquired by it on purchase from the holding company? - On careful perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that the CIT(A) has categorically held that the provisions of s. 47 has no application to the present case as assessee has purchased the shares from its holding company for a price. We find no infirmity in this observation of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) further observed that it is a case of purchase of stock-in-trade by the assessee for a price and in this regard we do not find any fact borne out from the records. Had it been a case of trading of shares and shares were purchased as stock-in-trade there would not be any question of computation of capital gain. At one stage the CIT(A) held this purchase of the shares as stock-in-trade and at other point he computed the capital gain on the sale of shares as per Expln. 5 to s. 48 of the IT Act and finally he has agreed that capital gain is to be computed and for indexation the assessment year would be taken as 1994-95. We agree with this finding of the CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the orders of the lower authorities as they have rightly computed the capital gain accrued on the sale of shares.
Treatment of whole lease rent as an income - Since the matter is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal for 1996-97 to 1999-2000, we, following the same, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with similar direction that interest income accruing to the assessee may be charged to tax in place of rental income assessed by him as the lease transaction is held to be a financial arrangement, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Disallowance of interest u/s 14A - In the instant case, Revenue authorities have disallowed the interest on borrowed funds which were invested in shares without looking to the nature of shares whether they were kept as stock-in-trade or as an investment. We, therefore, are of the view that this issue requires fresh adjudication by the AO to identify the borrowed funds, which were invested in shares, held as investment and only with regard to these borrowed funds disallowance under s. 14A can be made. The interest paid on the borrowed funds which were invested in shares kept as stock-in-trade deserves to be allowed as revenue expenditure under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to readjudicate the issue afresh in terms indicated above after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Computation of book profit u/s 115JA - Assessee has maintained an account for NPAs and whatever recovery of the outstanding debts is not properly effected and certain defaults in instalments are committed, assessee put those outstanding dues under the head "Non-performing assets" and accordingly, he made a provision for NPAs while computing the total income of the assessee. We are of the view that the ratio laid down in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd.[2006 (12) TMI 171 - ITAT CALCUTTA] by the Special Bench strictly applies to the present case and following the same we hold that the provisions for NPAs is not a provision for liability. As such the question whether it is ascertained or unascertained becomes irrelevant. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO not to increase the net profit shown in the P&L a/c for the relevant previous year prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act in order to compute the book profit under s. 115JA of the Act. Accordingly this issue is disposed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2007 (11) TMI 321
Issues:
1. Disallowance of loss as speculation loss under Explanation to s. 73
2. Revision under s. 263 for disallowance of proportionate expenses towards share trading activity
Issue 1: Disallowance of loss as speculation loss under Explanation to s. 73
The case involved an appeal against the disallowance of a loss incurred by the assessee on share trading. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a portion of the loss as speculation loss under Explanation to s. 73, which could only be set off against speculation income. The assessee contended that the loss should be treated as a normal business loss. The assessee relied on judgments by the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi and the Division Bench of Mumbai. However, the Revenue supported the AO's decision, citing a judgment by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Ahmedabad. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered against the assessee by the Special Bench's judgment in Ahmedabad, and therefore, decided in favor of the Revenue, dismissing the appeal.
Issue 2: Revision under s. 263 for disallowance of proportionate expenses towards share trading activity
In this issue, the CIT revised the AO's order under s. 263, directing the disallowance of proportionate expenses related to share trading activity. The assessee argued that the CIT's order was a mere substitution of opinion and relied on relevant judgments. The Revenue supported the CIT's decision. The Tribunal noted that the CIT had directed the disallowance of expenses based on a proportionate calculation related to the share trading business. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT's approach, stating that the administrative expenses incurred by the assessee should be allowed against brokerage income in full. The Tribunal found that the CIT's view was incorrect and that the AO's view was a possible one. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under s. 263, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
This detailed analysis covers the two main issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented, the relevant case law cited, and the Tribunal's final decision in each case.
-
2007 (11) TMI 320
Computation of MAT u/s 115JB - deduction of profit attributable to export u/s 80HHC - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that for computing the book profit for the purpose of s. 115JB the net profits shown in the P&L a/c prepared as per its sub-s. (2), are to be reduced by the amount of profits eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC irrespective of the fact how much percentage of it is eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The amount of profit eligible for deduction would not be governed by sub-s. (1B) of s. 80HHC in the absence of its reference in cl. (iv) of the Explanation to s. 115JB. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement of the CIT(A) who has rightly adjudicated the issue in the light of the given situation. Accordingly we confirm the same.
In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 319
Issues involved:
The issue involves the computation of the period of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the context of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Bangalore.
Summary:
1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court to determine if Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be applied for computing the period of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the nature of the Appellate Authority under the Act.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the wrong authority, leading to dismissal on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal citing non-applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court allowed the petition for reference to address the legal question.
3. After hearing the parties, it was acknowledged that the appeal was wrongly filed before the adjudicating authority instead of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act rejected by the Commissioner.
4. The petitioner argued that Section 14 of the Limitation Act should apply, citing a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and a Supreme Court case regarding the extension of the provision in specific legal contexts.
5. The High Court considered the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), concluding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be extended to appeals filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
6. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the matter to be reconsidered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on its merits and in accordance with the law. The learned CGSC was permitted to file a memo of appearance within a specified timeframe.
-
2007 (11) TMI 318
Interest on refund of pre-deposit - Rate of interest - Held that: - the contention of the respondents that the interest payable would be 8% cannot be accepted - The petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the principal amount of pre-deposit as also the interest on the amount deposited in the Court, if the amount was invested.
-
2007 (11) TMI 317
Circular No. 8 of 2006 dated January 17, 2006 and letter dated May 19, 2006 seeked to be quashed - permission to mutilate imported used rails was rejected and it was directed that the same is required to be classified under CTH 7302 as disc - Held that:- In the present case, the issue regarding validity of the impugned circular has already been gone into by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Madras Steel Re-rollers Association's case [2007 (6) TMI 222 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] and learned counsel for the respondent had not been able to point out as to on what account the conclusion arrived at by the Madras High Court can be said to be sub silentio, per incuriam, obiter dicta.
Accordingly, following the judgment in Madras Steel Re-rollers Association's case (supra), the impugned circular No. 8 of 2006 dated January 17, 2006 and all proceedings consequent thereupon are declared illegal.
-
2007 (11) TMI 316
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal challenged a tribunal's order regarding the movement of capital goods between two units of the assessee, finding no disposal of goods warranting denial of Modvat credit. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the matter involved factual findings, and the appeal was dismissed. (Citation: 2007 (11) TMI 316)
-
2007 (11) TMI 314
Smuggled goods - Non-notified goods - Burden of proof - Held that: - The law as now settled in such matters in respect of non-notified goods is that the burden is on the revenue to establish that these are smuggled goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (11) TMI 313
Issues:
Claim of Modvat credit disallowed due to delay in entry in RG 23A Part II.
Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing tungsten wire, imported tungsten ore under two invoices and brought it into the factory premises on specific dates. Although the receipt entry was promptly made in RG.23A Part I, the entry in RG.23A Part II was delayed. The claim for Modvat credit concerning the ore imported on a particular date was disallowed due to the delay in entering the particulars in RG.23A Part II. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal.
The appellant argued that the delay in entering the particulars in RG.23A Part II was due to the unit being new and work commencing later. The appellant contended that the entry in RG.23A Part I should be considered substantial compliance, as held by the Tribunal in similar cases. The appellant requested the court to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a proper review based on the entry in RG.23A Part I.
After hearing both parties, the Court found that the authorities below did not adequately consider the facts presented by the appellant. The Court opined that if the appellant was entitled to the benefit based on the entry in RG.23A Part I, the matter should be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Officer by examining the records maintained by the assessee. Therefore, without addressing the question of law, the Court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh review in accordance with the law.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Tribunal and the Adjudicating Authority were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration in compliance with the law.
-
2007 (11) TMI 312
Prosecution - complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Sections 193, 192 and 120-B of the IPC - Held that:- After due consideration of the evidence produced by the department, the CEGAT has exonerated the accused company by returning a positive finding that the quantity of MS ingots alleged to be clandestinely manufactured and removed without payment of excise duty was in fact wastage occurring at the stage of production of forgings out of ingots. No fabrication or manipulation was found in the documents of the accused company. Since the Department has not challenged the order dated 19-9-95, the finding arrived at by CEGAT has attained finality. The order of the CEGAT exonerating the accused company is thus clearly on merits.
In view of the above discussion, the complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Sections 193, 192 and 120-B of the IPC (Annexure G to the petition) and the proceedings emanating out of the said complaint are quashed for the reason the departmental proceedings has resulted in the petitioners being exonerated on merits and the criminal prosecution is based on same set of facts and evidence.
-
2007 (11) TMI 311
Forged AEPC Certificate to clear the goods - Held that:- In view of the submissions the best course of action would be, to direct the respondents not to take any further action upon the impugned show cause notice awaiting the result by the Appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The said Commissioner shall, therefore, endeavour to decide the petitioner's Appeal against the adjudicatory order dated 20-12-2006 pending before him at the earliest and in any case within four months from today. The respondents shall, in the meanwhile, not proceed with the impugned show cause notice and make any final order. The continuation and resumption of the said proceedings shall be guided by the final order of the CESTAT.
It is open to the petitioner to seek early disposal of the Appeal against the order of the suspension pending before the Tribunal. If such an application is made, the Tribunal shall endeavour to hear the matter at the earliest.
-
2007 (11) TMI 310
Bail - Diversion of imported goods - Held that:- It is obvious that applicant indulged in white collar crime diverting non-edible palm oil to the ghee manufacturers for use into the ghee, which is consumed by the common people. He obtained licence for concessional import of crude palm oil by misrepresentation that it would be used for manufacture of washing soap, depriving the public exchequer of import duty of more than Rs. one crore. The applicant, first made an application for compounding of the offence, then flatly refused to compound the offence and refused to pay the amount. The counsel for the petitioner described act of making compounding application as a stupidity of the applicant.
Considering all these facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail and the trial may take some time the applicant is granted bail if the applicant deposits 50% of the amount levied as compounding fee as specified with the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise without prejudice to the rights of the applicant. The applicant, if it is found after the trial, had not committed any offence shall be returned back this amount. If the evasion of duty is found, the amount shall be adjusted against duty payable and penalties levied as per law.
-
2007 (11) TMI 309
Penalty on broker - Section 112(a) or (b) of the Customs Act - Held that: - We find from the order of the Tribunal that they have concurred with the finding of fact of the authorities below that the appellant was a conspirator and consequently was liable for penalty under Section 112(a) or (b) of the Customs Act. In our opinion this is purely a finding of fact. There is nothing brought to our attention warranting this Court coming to the conclusion other than what the learned Tribunal had arrived at - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 308
Prosecution - Effect on criminal proceedings - Smuggling - Evidence - Held that:- In the instant case for lack of evidence on 3 points, namely, proof of ownership of the searched premises, proof of smuggled character of the goods and proof of confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioner was exonerated. Needless to state, at the criminal trial the prosecution would be entitled to prove by leading evidence the ownership of the searched premises, smuggled character of goods and in particular confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
In view of above discussion, the petition is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 307
Violation of Natural justice - withdrawal of the certificate for entitlement of exemptions under Customs Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-1988 - Held that:- The respondent has neither committed any illegality nor given a go by to the procedures nor can it be accepted that they are orders passed without according opportunity to the petitioner.
This apart, the proceedings on the determination of duty liability having attained finality, there is no point in examining such matters and when there is no justifiable reason for the same. W.P. dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 306
Refund of rebate - revision application - Held that:- It cannot be construed that after return of the revision application, the very same paper book was to be presented along with a petition as per the provisions for condonation of delay. From the decision of this Court, it will be evident that the Revenue was allowed to take back the revision application for filing a proper revision application along with a petition for condonation of delay, and for the said reason the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for determination of the application.
In view of the factual position and in the writ petition the company having not satisfied the Court that the amount so claimed, for that the burden has not been passed on any other person, it was not open to learned Single Judge to interfere with the order passed by the revisional authority.
............
|
9911796707
