|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 491 Records
-
2006 (6) TMI 138
Deletion of addition made by the AO on account of capital gain arising out of the transfer of property - relevant year of chargeability - deletion holding that the capital asset in question was not transferred in the year in which it has been taxed because the possession was not handed over to the purchasers during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1994-95 - HELD THAT:- In a situation in which less than 10 per cent of the cash consideration is paid by the developer to the assessee and in which no part of consideration in kind is paid by the assessee, it cannot be said that the developer had 'complete control' over the property. When the control or right to control is not passed, there cannot be any question of transfer of property.
In terms of cl. 9 of the development agreement, the possession was to be delivered only after the complete payment was made. Admittedly, this condition was not complied with till the end of the relevant previous year. In these circumstances, when only a small portion of sale consideration was received as earnest/deposit money and when the developer could not have, therefore, exercised his rights under the contract which were to crystallize on making the payments after the receipt of no objection certificate from the authorities, it cannot be said that there is anything to indicate, leave aside establish, "passing of or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer" which is sine qua non for taking the date of contract as relevant for the purpose of deciding the year of chargeability of capital gains. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the date of development agreement would not really be relevant to decide the year of chargeability.
The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) is confirmed and no interference is required in the matter - appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (6) TMI 137
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Extent of exemption in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue for adjudication was whether the allowances received by the assessee, a commercial pilot, while abroad in connection with flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 under section 10(14), which was not considered by the employer at the time of deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the exemption to Rs. 30,000 based on section 10(14)(ii) and relevant notifications, while the CIT(A) held that allowances for international flights fall under section 10(14)(i) and are exempt to the extent actually incurred.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue had previously accepted that allowances for international flights are covered under section 10(14)(i), as evidenced by revision orders under section 264 and administrative instructions. The Tribunal highlighted that the revenue cannot take contradictory stands in different cases on identical issues, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal further clarified that section 10(14)(i) and section 10(14)(ii) operate in mutually exclusive fields. Section 10(14)(i) applies to allowances granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily, and exclusively incurred in connection with duties of an office, while section 10(14)(ii) pertains to allowances for personal expenses or increased cost of living at the place of duty or residence. The Tribunal concluded that allowances for domestic and international flights are eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) as they are granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from the normal place of duty.
2. Extent of exemption in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure:
The CIT(A) had allowed exemption to the extent of 50% of the allowances or Rs. 50,000, whichever is less, due to the absence of actual evidence of expenditure. The Tribunal found this approach arbitrary and lacking rationale. It referred to a previous Tribunal decision in Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Asstt. CIT, which emphasized that unless the quantum of allowances is found to be excessive or unreasonable, the revenue cannot call for actual expenditure evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the allowances granted were reasonable and not disproportionately high compared to the salary and nature of duties. It referenced a Government of India circular prescribing daily allowances for government servants traveling abroad, which ranged between US $50 to US $75 per day. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) by adopting these daily rates as the maximum permissible rate without requiring evidence of actual expenditure, provided the allowances received do not exceed these rates.
For domestic flights, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of Rs. 600 per day as reasonable and directed the AO to grant exemption accordingly, subject to the actual allowance received.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention that allowances for both domestic and international flights are exempt under section 10(14)(i) and directed the AO to grant exemption based on the prescribed daily rates without requiring actual expenditure evidence, provided the allowances received do not exceed these rates. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
-
2006 (6) TMI 136
Slump Sale - computation of net worth on slump sale - Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - interest received by the assessee on refund received from Income Tax Department for the year under consideration is chargeable to tax in this year or not - Disallowance being payments made to Clubs - Disallowance being payments to various clubs by way of reimbursement - Deletion of two additions in respect of refund of income tax and interest in the case of foreign concern - deletion of disallowance being expenditure incurred on acquiring bus as well as education expenses in respect of employees' children.
Slump Sale - transfer of cement division by way of slump sale - Computation of capital gains - whether "net worth" so computed can be in negative so as to increase the sale consideration by such negative figure of "net worth" for computing capital gain? - HELD THAT:- he answer is in negative for the reasons given hereafter. Firstly, capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Gain would arise only where sale consideration is more than the cost. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that capital gain would be more than the sale consideration. No man of prudence can ever think of capital gain higher than the sale consideration. Capital gain can either be excess of sale consideration over the cost or "nil" if sale consideration is equal to cost. Where the cost is more than sale consideration, it would be a case of loss. No other situation can be visualized. Therefore, capital gain can never be more than the sale consideration.
Secondly, the Legislature has used the expression "net worth" which by deeming fiction is to be considered as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48. Section 48 of the Act provides for deduction of cost of acquisition/improvement from the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital assets. The cost of a property, as per dictionary meaning, means the price paid by a buyer to the seller. Therefore, it must be a positive figure.
Thirdly, had the Legislature also intended negative cost of acquisition, it would have used the words "by deducting from or adding to, as the case may be" in section 48 of the Act instead of the words "by deducting from" actually used by it. The language used by Legislature in section 48, thus, itself shows that it never intended negative cost of acquisition. Since "net worth" in section 50B is deemed to be the cost of acquisition as per sub-section (2) thereof, it must also have been intended by the Legislature in positive. Therefore, the expression "reduced by" used by the Legislature in Explanation 1 to section 50B has been used in the sense that net worth should be arrived at positive figure or at best be reduced to "Nil". Consequently, where the liabilities are more, then the value of assets as computed under section 50B, the net worth would be considered as "Nil".
In the present case, the value of assets as per books of account is much more than the value of liabilities. No prudent person would have acquired the unit unless the value of assets or benefits attached to the division is more than the liability - The division was purchased since value of assets was more than the liabilities. It is because of written down value of assets under section 43(6)(c) of the Act, that value of depreciable assets had to be computed at substantially low figure which resulted in the value of assets lesser than liabilities but on that account net worth cannot be reduced below the "Nil" account since such process would be contrary to the scheme of the section itself - "net worth" of the cement division would be taken as "Nil" which shall be deemed to be the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48 of the Act.
Whether the amount of consideration received by the assessee should be increased by the amount of liabilities of the cement division for ascertaining the full value of consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ATTILI N. RAO [2001 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]? - HELD THAT:- If liability is to be added to the sale consideration then, the same has also to be excluded from the computation of "net worth" since otherwise it would amount to double jeopardy. Such process would amount to re-writing of the provisions of section 50B which is not permissible in law since such process is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature. Therefore, considering the scheme of section 50B, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the present case.
The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to assess the capital gain at Rs. 75.98 crores.
Disallowance of interest of Rs. 21,06,849 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra since covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that interest on borrowed funds would be allowed irrespective of the fact whether used for day-to-day running of the business or for acquisition of business assets. Both the authorities have not given any specific reason for not following this judgment. The claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that it has been capitalised in the books of account. Entries in the books of account are not relevant for rejecting the claim of the assessee if it is otherwise allowable.
Whether interest received by the assessee on refund received from Income Tax Department for the year under consideration is chargeable to tax in this year or not? - HELD THAT:- The Learned Counsel for the assessee has fairly stated that this issue is covered against him by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Avada Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., [2006 (1) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that interest accrues in the year in which interest on refund is received by the assessee. Therefore, following the said judgment, we decide the issue against the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition, if any, on the basis of income offered by the assessee in subsequent years.
Disallowance of Rs. 1,66,329 being payments made to Clubs - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the appeal of the assessee on this issue in absence of any details - the order of the Learned CIT(A) is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance considering the above expenditures as entertain expenditure.
Disallowance of Rs. 10,61,528 being payments to various clubs by way of reimbursement - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 40A(9) of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any sum paid by the assessee as an employee towards the set-up or formation of or as a contribution to any fund, trust, company, association of persons, body of individuals, society, or other institution for any purpose, except covered by section 36(1)(iv/v). There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that such payments were made towards the purposes mentioned in sub-section (9) of section 40A - the provisions of section 40A(9) are not applicable and, therefore, no disallowance was justified. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside on this issue and the disallowance sustained by him is hereby deleted.
Disallowance of interest of Rs. 6,34,49,000 on the ground that such interest on borrowings were relatable to tax free dividend income - HELD THAT:- The assessee has specifically contended before the Assessing Officer that no borrowed funds were utilised in such investments and further no dividend has been received on investment made during the year. This contention remains uncontroverted. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of MARUTI UDYOG LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2004 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT DELHI-A] that onus is on the Department to prove that any expenditure was incurred for earning tax free income. The entire books of account were before the Assessing Officer who has not brought any material on record to prove that any interest was paid for earning tax free income under section 10(33). Therefore, following the said decision, the disallowance sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted.
Deletion of two additions of Rs. 43,500 in respect of refund of income tax and interest in the case of foreign concern - deletion of disallowance of Rs. 5,76,025 being expenditure incurred on acquiring bus as well as education expenses in respect of employees' children - HELD THAT:- The said appeals are still pending. In these circumstances, both the parties are agreed that the matter may be remitted to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the final verdict of the Tribunal in the appeals relating to the earlier years. In view of the same, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) on these two issues and remit the matters to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal pertaining to the earlier years.
The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (6) TMI 135
Issues:
- Interpretation of the term "advance tax" under section 234A of the Income-tax Act.
- Whether the payment made by the assessee on 30-6-2000 qualifies as "advance tax" for the purpose of calculating interest under section 234A.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "advance tax" under section 234A of the Income-tax Act:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term "advance tax" as used in section 234A of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal deliberated on whether the term should be construed in its generic sense, encompassing any taxes paid in advance of the anticipated tax liability, or if it should be restricted to taxes paid in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-C of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal analyzed the statutory definition of "advance tax" under sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, which specifies that advance tax is payable in accordance with Chapter XVII-C. However, the tribunal also considered the legislative acknowledgment that the meaning of "advance tax" can vary based on the context in which it is used. The tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory terms based on context and legislative intent, ultimately concluding that the term "advance tax" in section 234A should be understood in its generic sense to include all taxes paid in advance of the anticipated tax liability.
Issue 2: Whether the payment made on 30-6-2000 qualifies as "advance tax" for calculating interest under section 234A:
The second issue in this case pertains to a specific payment made by the assessee on 30-6-2000 and whether it should be considered as "advance tax" for the purpose of calculating interest under section 234A. The assessee argued that the payment of Rs. 8,30,000 made before filing the return of income on 23-11-2000 should be treated as advance tax, thereby reducing the interest liability. The tribunal analyzed the provisions of Chapter XVII-C, specifically section 211, which outlines the due dates for advance tax payments. The tribunal noted that any amount paid after 31st March cannot be treated as advance tax for the financial year ending on that date. Considering the legislative intent behind section 234A and the purpose of charging interest for delayed self-assessment tax, the tribunal concluded that the payment made on 30-6-2000 should indeed be treated as advance tax. The tribunal emphasized that interest should not be charged on amounts already paid to prevent unjust enrichment and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the Rs. 8,30,000 payment while calculating interest under section 234A. The tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT [2005] 254 ITR 755, which supported the interpretation that the payment should be considered as advance tax.
In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the payment made on 30-6-2000 while calculating interest under section 234A. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions, legislative intent, and judicial precedents to determine the interpretation of "advance tax" and its application in the context of interest calculations under the Income-tax Act.
-
2006 (6) TMI 134
Income Escaping Assessment - legality and validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - disallowance of deductions under section 80-IA.
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the reassessment proceedings on the basis of evidence and material placed on record? - HELD THAT:- The basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings is to be judged solely on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and the material and information referred to by the Assessing Officer in the reasons for initiating such action. It is settled law that Assessing Officer cannot initiate the reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of suspicion or for the purpose of making verification. The Assessing Officer cannot support the reopening of the assessment by collecting the material or by making enquiry subsequently after the date of initiation of the proceedings. Thus, the reopening of the assessment is to be seen on the date when the Assessing Officer initiated action under section 147. In the present case, the material gathered by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings or enquiry made by him during the remand proceedings cannot be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the validity of the initiation of the reassessment proceedings.
In the present case also, whether the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating reassessment proceedings or not has to be decided on the basis of material and evidence placed on record and the legal position discussed above. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had filed returns for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 claiming deduction under section 80-IA of the amount mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Since no objection has been raised by the Revenue on any other ground, it is clear that the claims of the assessee were supported by audit report of the auditors. Further, it is also a fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of Laptop computers and the project was approved by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India, State Excise Deptt., Sales-tax Deptt. and assessee had also obtained loan from State Bank of India - Admittedly, in this case, the Assessing Officer did not issue notices under section 143(2) for any of the assessment years. In other words, there were no proceedings pending in this case. Now the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings under section 148 by recording identical reasons for all the three assessment years. It would be in the fitness of things to reproduce herein the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1994-95 which are same as for the subsequent assessment years also.
It is relevant to mention that even for selection of a case under scrutiny, the Assessing Officer is required to obtain approval of the higher authorities. Therefore, the provisions of section 147 cannot be resorted to by the Assessing Officer with a view to circumvent the legal requirement/procedure more so when there is no such material to warrant initiation of reassessment proceedings.
The conditions necessary for initiating reassessment proceedings are that there must be a direct nexus between the information and material becoming available to the Assessing Officer which enables him to form a 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessments. In the present case, the material placed on record does not show any nexus between the statements and the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot initiate the reassessment proceedings on the basis of suspicion, vague or unspecific information. It is trite law that where the Assessing Officer had no specific basis for his belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer simply for the purpose of making further verification of the claim of the assessee would be without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid. If the Assessing Officer wanted to verify such claim, he could have done so by issue of notices under section 143(2) within the period prescribed under the Act.
The machinery of reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to, for covering the legal lacuna/procedure or even for patch up work by the Assessing Officer. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that there was no information/material available with the Assessing Officer for entertaining a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer for initiating the reassessment proceedings, which were illegal and void ab initio. Accordingly, we quash the reassessments completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 and consequent order of the CIT(A) for all the assessment years - The appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2006 (6) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under section 263.
2. Inclusion of income disclosed in a belated return in block assessment.
3. Application of section 158BB(1)(ca) versus section 158BB(1)(c).
4. Double taxation of the same income.
5. Consideration of advance tax payment and regular assessment proceedings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 263:
The assessee contended that the notice issued under section 263 was illegal and invalid as there was no valid basis or reason for its issuance. The CIT, however, justified the notice on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to include the income disclosed in the belated return for the assessment year 2002-03 in the block assessment, making the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
2. Inclusion of Income Disclosed in a Belated Return in Block Assessment:
The CIT directed the AO to include the sum of Rs. 53,27,812 in the block assessment, arguing that the return filed late was non est and the income should be treated as undisclosed. The assessee argued that the income disclosed in the return was already considered by the AO during the block assessment proceedings, and it was not correct to treat it as undisclosed income.
3. Application of Section 158BB(1)(ca) versus Section 158BB(1)(c):
The CIT relied on section 158BB(1)(ca), which states that if the due date for filing a return has expired and no return has been filed, the income should be considered nil. The Tribunal, however, noted that section 158BB(1)(ca) does not define undisclosed income but provides a method for its computation. The Tribunal emphasized that the case falls under section 158BB(1)(c), which pertains to situations where regular books of account are maintained, and entries are made in the normal course of business. Since the assessee maintained regular books and paid advance tax, the income disclosed could not be treated as undisclosed.
4. Double Taxation of the Same Income:
The assessee argued that the same income could not be taxed twice-once in regular assessment and again in block assessment. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the income disclosed in the return for the assessment year 2002-03 had already been taxed in the regular assessment, and including it again in the block assessment would result in double taxation.
5. Consideration of Advance Tax Payment and Regular Assessment Proceedings:
The assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 5,71,000 before the search, indicating an admission of income for regular assessment. The Tribunal observed that the advance tax payment and the subsequent regular assessment under sections 143/148, where the disclosed income was taxed, supported the assessee's position. The CIT's argument that the AO's issuance of notice under section 148 did not affect the block assessment was rejected by the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 158BB(1)(ca) were not applicable in this case. Instead, the case was covered by section 158BB(1)(c), as the income was entered in regular books of account maintained in the normal course of business. Consequently, the income disclosed in the belated return could not be included in the block assessment. The Tribunal cancelled the CIT's order dated 16-8-2005 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
2006 (6) TMI 132
Issues involved:
Violation of conditions under Customs Act regarding imported goods diversion and imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) - Mens rea, knowledge of confiscability, and liability of indenting agent.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Violation of conditions under Customs Act regarding imported goods diversion
The case involved an appeal against the dismissal of appeals by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, regarding the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant, an indenting agent of various exporting firms, diverted imported goods (polyester lining fabrics) to the local market after availing duty concession under a specific notification. The conditions for availing the duty concession included using the goods only for manufacturing textile garments for export, as certified by the AEPC. The appellant admitted to diverting the goods in violation of these conditions. The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on the appellant for each transaction. The Tribunal upheld these penalties, leading to the current appeal.
Issue 2: Mens rea, knowledge of confiscability, and liability of indenting agent
The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The questions raised were whether the appellant's involvement needed to be conscious or knowing, whether mens rea was required for penalty imposition, and whether a penalty could be imposed on a person other than the importer without knowledge of the goods' confiscability. The court referred to Section 112 of the Act, emphasizing that liability arises if a person is concerned with goods they know or have reason to believe are liable to confiscation. The court found that the appellant, by diverting the goods in violation of the notification conditions, had the requisite knowledge of confiscability. The court held that the appellant's actions were conscious and knowing, justifying the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act. As the appellant contravened statutory conditions and admitted to the violations, the court dismissed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
In conclusion, the court upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant for diverting imported goods in contravention of statutory conditions, emphasizing the appellant's knowledge of confiscability and conscious involvement in the diversion. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with statutory requirements for availing duty concessions and the liability of agents involved in such violations under the Customs Act.
-
2006 (6) TMI 131
Issues:
Challenging order by first respondent, validity of Central Excise Registration Certificate, demand for payment, dismissal of appeal by Tribunal, compliance with deposit condition.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The petitioner, a company manufacturing M.S. Ingots, had a valid Central Excise Registration Certificate. The second respondent issued a show cause notice demanding payment based on statements obtained from various sources. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance with the deposit condition.
The petitioner argued that the appeal was not decided on merits and the deposit condition was onerous. The respondents contended that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the deposit condition. The Court considered the case and opined that the petitioner should have the opportunity to present their case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had imposed a deposit condition which was not fully met by the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without considering the merits.
The Court reduced the deposit amount from Rs. 7,50,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 considering the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 1,00,000. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount within four weeks. Once the condition was satisfied, the Tribunal was instructed to take up the appeal and proceed with the matter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, closing the connected W.P.M.P. without costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 130
The High Court of Judicature at Madras issued an order granting interim stay in a case where the respondents did not appear or have representation. Citation: 2006 (6) TMI 130.
-
2006 (6) TMI 129
Issues Involved:
1. Forfeiture of facility to pay Central Excise Duty in monthly installments.
2. Alleged violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of notice before passing the impugned order.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Forfeiture of Facility to Pay Central Excise Duty in Monthly Installments:
The petitioner-company, a manufacturer of rigid PVC film and sheets, was availing the facility of paying Central Excise Duty in monthly installments under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The company defaulted in paying the duty for September 2005 by one day, paying it on 5th November 2005 instead of before 5th November 2005. This delay was attributed to an unintentional mistake by the company staff, who failed to notice an amendment to Rule 8 that changed the grace period from one month to 30 days. Consequently, the 1st respondent passed an order on 2nd February 2006, forfeiting the facility to pay duty in monthly installments for two months and requiring the petitioner to pay duty for each consignment by debiting the current account (PLA) without availing CENVAT credit during this period. The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition.
2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without prior notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent countered that there was no amendment to Rule 8 changing the period from one month to 30 days and that the petitioner's default was admitted. The court examined the pre-amended and amended versions of Rule 8, noting that the amended sub-rule (3A) explicitly provided for forfeiture of the facility if duty was not paid within 30 days of the due date.
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to determine whether the lack of notice constituted a violation of natural justice. In cases such as *Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J. & K. Bank Ltd.*, the Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice are not rigid and can be dispensed with when facts are admitted and an inquiry would be an empty formality. Similarly, in *Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa*, it was held that the extent of compliance with natural justice principles depends on the specific facts of each case and can be waived if it leads to an empty formality.
The court concluded that since the petitioner admitted the default and the rule explicitly provided for forfeiture, a show cause notice would not have made a difference. The petitioner's reliance on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in *Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India* was distinguished on the grounds that the Supreme Court judgments provided a more relevant precedent.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's admitted default justified the forfeiture of the facility to pay duty in monthly installments without the need for a prior notice, as any hearing would have been an empty formality. The principles of natural justice were deemed to have been sufficiently addressed given the circumstances of the case. No costs were awarded.
-
2006 (6) TMI 128
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh modified the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10.00 lakhs within six weeks for appeal hearing, instead of Rs. 20.00 lakhs initially demanded. The Tribunal found that the petitioner did not have a strong case for full waiver but considered the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.
-
2006 (6) TMI 127
Issues:
1. Whether the Settlement Commission has the power to grant immunity from the payment of interest covered by a bond.
2. Whether the obligation under the contract is statutory in nature.
3. Whether the agreement in the form of an undertaking is a statutory contract.
4. Whether the Settlement Commission was justified in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is whether the Settlement Commission has the authority to grant immunity from the payment of interest covered by a bond. The controversy arose when the Settlement Commission remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, citing a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner argued that as per the terms of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., payment of interest is a statutory liability, and the bond should be treated as part of the statute. The petitioner also referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court supporting this view. The court observed that the agreement in the form of an undertaking was a contractual liability, and thus, the Settlement Commission rightly remitted the matter back for adjudication.
2. The second issue revolves around whether the obligation under the contract is statutory in nature. The petitioner contended that the obligation to pay interest was statutory as per the terms and conditions of Notification No. 31/97-Cus. The court noted that the agreement between the parties, although adopting the terms of the notification, did not transform into a statutory contract. The court emphasized that the petitioner's agreement to pay interest under the undertaking remained a contractual liability, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
3. The third issue concerns whether the agreement in the form of an undertaking constitutes a statutory contract. The court clarified that the undertaking was a simple agreement between the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, acting on behalf of the President of India, and the petitioner. The court highlighted that the agreement did not originate from any provisions of the Act and was purely a contractual arrangement. Therefore, the court concluded that the agreement, despite adopting the terms of the notification, did not amount to a statutory contract, reinforcing the contractual nature of the liability.
4. Lastly, the court addressed the issue of whether the Settlement Commission was justified in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. The court analyzed the terms of the undertaking and the nature of the liability, ultimately affirming the Settlement Commission's decision to not entertain the petitioner's application and sending the matter back for adjudication. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and rejected the connected Civil Applications.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the contractual nature of the liability to pay interest under the agreement in the form of an undertaking, emphasizing that despite adopting statutory terms, the agreement remains a contractual obligation. The court's decision upholds the Settlement Commission's authority and underscores the distinction between statutory and contractual liabilities in customs matters.
-
2006 (6) TMI 126
Issues:
1. Appeal against the Tribunal's order regarding Central Excise Revenue irregularities, refund entitlement, and penalty imposition.
Analysis:
The High Court addressed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order concerning irregularities in Central Excise Revenue, refund entitlement, and penalty imposition. The respondent-assessee had undergone auditing, leading to the discovery of irregularities, issuance of a show cause notice, confirmation of duty, and imposition of a penalty. The appeal filed by the assessee was partially allowed by the appellate Commissioner, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal, resulting in the current challenge by the department.
The counsel for the appellant argued for interference in the Tribunal's order, contending that the respondent was not entitled to a refund and that the penalty imposition was justified. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel supported the Tribunal's order. After a thorough hearing and examination of the record, the High Court delved into the specifics of the case.
The Tribunal identified four key items in dispute: return of capital goods, short-receipt of material, sale of old used material, and irregular availment of credit. The Tribunal, considering the Department's concession regarding the duty amount, ordered a refund. The respondent did not press charges on two items, and the only remaining issue was the sale of old used material. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal ruled that scrap and waste material are not excisable, and no duty is payable.
During arguments, the respondent's counsel referenced a Supreme Court judgment supporting the non-leviability of duty on waste arising from processing inputs. The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance and found no factual or legal errors in the case. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, noting that the orders were based on established law and facts, warranting no interference. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to order a refund and set aside the penalty was deemed justified, with the High Court rejecting the appeal.
In conclusion, the High Court found no grounds for interference in the appellate jurisdiction based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimately rejecting the appeal without costs.
-
2006 (6) TMI 125
Issues:
Prosecution for filing false declarations regarding turnover.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietor of a small scale industry, was accused of fraudulently furnishing declarations to evade excise duty on the turnover of the factory. The Central Excise Law required accurate reporting of goods produced and cleared annually. The accused allegedly suppressed actual turnover to remain within exempted limits. The charge sheet included a charge under Section 420 related to the alleged false declarations.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the case was numbered as C.C. No. 117 of 1998. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the turnover did not exceed exempted limits, thus not warranting prosecution. The Central Excise Department sought a substantial amount towards excise duty, but the Collector's inquiry found the declarations filed by the petitioner were verified and in order. The Collector's order stated that the party cannot be blamed for mis-declaration as the department was aware of the nature of the manufacture.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted that no appeal was made against the Collector's order, making it final. The prosecution focused on the alleged false declarations. The counsel argued that since the Collector had already determined the declarations were not false, prosecuting the petitioner for the same was unjustified. The High Court concurred, stating that with the Collector's order confirming the accuracy of the declarations, there was no basis to continue the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing the prosecution against the petitioner.
-
2006 (6) TMI 124
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, 1998 and rejection of application under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by the Commissioner of Customs.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, 1998, and the rejection of their application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by the Commissioner of Customs. However, during the final hearing, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, leaving the issue of whether the Commissioner of Customs was justified in rejecting the application under KVSS, 1998 as the sole matter for consideration.
2. The petitioner had imported three consignments of crude palm stearin in 1981 and sought clearance by paying duty under a specific heading. A dispute arose regarding the classification of the goods, leading to a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. Pending the petition, the goods were allowed to be cleared provisionally based on the petitioner's classification and furnishing a bond for the differential duty.
3. The Central Government introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner filed declarations under the scheme for the imported goods cleared as per the interim order of the Delhi High Court. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs rejected the application under KVSS, 1998, citing the absence of show-cause or demand notices at the time of filing the declarations, leading to the current writ petition.
4. During the proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the original writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court in 1981, further complicating the legal landscape of the case.
5. The Court referred to a previous judgment involving similar circumstances where it was held that the Commissioner was justified in rejecting declarations made under KVSS due to the absence of a determination of duty at the time of filing. The Court emphasized that without a final or provisional assessment order, the petitioner could not benefit from the scheme, as was the case in the present situation.
6. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which the Court distinguished from the present case based on the crucial difference that in the Gujarat case, there was a determination of duty liability, unlike in the current scenario where no such determination existed. The absence of a demand notice and show-cause notice further differentiated the cases.
7. Ultimately, the Court found no fault in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application under KVSS, 1998, leading to the dismissal of the petition with no costs awarded.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, factual background, and the Court's reasoning behind the decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
-
2006 (6) TMI 123
Issues involved:
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; Compliance with Tribunal's directions; Restoration of appeal; Delay in filing restoration application; Service of notice; Change of address; Communication gap due to counsel's death.
Comprehensive Analysis:
Issue 1: Appeal Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) for non-prosecution. The Tribunal cited Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, stating that a notice regarding the hearing of the appeal was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 11th June, 1998, but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a delay of five years in the making of the application for restoration, which the petitioner failed to explain.
Issue 2: Compliance with Tribunal's Directions
The petitioner contended that there was full compliance with the Tribunal's directions regarding the pre-deposit of the amount and furnishing of a bank guarantee. The petitioner claimed to have deposited the required amount and provided the bank guarantee within the stipulated time. The petitioner asserted that the consultant was informed about the compliance, but due to the consultant's death in 2001, there was a communication gap. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance was challenged by the petitioner.
Issue 3: Restoration of Appeal
The petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal, arguing that the dismissal was unjustified as the conditions were met, and the bank guarantee was extended up to 2005. The Tribunal, however, refused to restore the appeal, citing the delay in filing the restoration application and the alleged non-appearance of the petitioner during the hearing.
Issue 4: Delay in Filing Restoration Application
The petitioner acknowledged the delay in filing the restoration application but explained that the circumstances leading to the delay indicated a bona fide impression that the appeal was pending. The petitioner extended the bank guarantee till 2005, unaware of the appeal's dismissal in 1998. The petitioner emphasized the confusion caused by the transfer of the appeal from Bombay to Delhi, the counsel's death, change of address, and non-service of notices.
Issue 5: Change of Address and Communication Gap
The petitioner informed the Tribunal about the change of address in 1996. Despite this communication, the petitioner claimed to have received no notice regarding the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner argued that the lack of notice at the changed address, coupled with the consultant's death and the absence of any acknowledgment of service, justified the appeal's restoration.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and granting restoration of the appeal. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, emphasizing the compliance with the Tribunal's directions and the communication gaps that led to the appeal's dismissal. The petitioner was directed to pay costs and keep the bank guarantee extended until the appeal's final disposal, with further directions scheduled before the Tribunal. Failure to comply would empower the Tribunal to take appropriate legal action.
-
2006 (6) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents could attach the properties of the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of excise duty.
2. The applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in prohibiting such attachment.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Attachment of Properties for Recovery of Excise Duty:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing heavy engineering equipment, was declared a sick company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 6-10-2005. The respondents initiated attachment proceedings on 16-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 to recover excise duty dues. The petitioner argued that after being declared a sick company and the appointment of the State Bank of India as the operating agency, the respondents could not enforce their claims against the company. The respondents contended that there was no provision in the Act that prevented them from enforcing the claim of excise duty, which became due at the time of production.
2. Applicability of Section 22 of the Act:
Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, suspends legal proceedings, contracts, etc., against a sick industrial company without the consent of the BIFR. The court examined whether the attachment of the petitioner's properties for recovery of excise duty fell under the purview of this section. Section 22(1) states that no proceedings for execution, distress, or the like against any properties of the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority, during the pendency of an inquiry under Section 16 or the preparation or implementation of a scheme under Section 17.
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to interpret Section 22:
- In *The Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd.*, the Supreme Court held that proceedings for execution, distress, or the like against the properties of a sick industrial company are automatically suspended once an inquiry under Section 16 is ordered by the Board.
- In *Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank*, the Supreme Court emphasized that no proceedings against the assets of a company should be taken before a final decision is given by the BIFR.
- In *M/s. Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd.*, it was reiterated that the effect of Section 22 would be applicable even after a winding-up order is passed, as no proceedings can be continued without the consent of the Board.
The respondents cited *Dy. Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals*, where the Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 22 applies only to dues included in a sanctioned scheme. However, this judgment was distinguished in *Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa* and did not apply to the present case, as the scheme for the petitioner company was yet to be sanctioned.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents could not attach the properties of the petitioner company without the consent of the BIFR, as a scheme under Section 17 was under preparation. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned attachment order was quashed. However, the respondents were granted the liberty to seek remedies available in law after obtaining permission from the Board.
-
2006 (6) TMI 121
The High Court set aside an ex parte order due to improper service, remitting the case back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. Fresh opportunity for hearing was ordered, with a deadline of three months for a new decision. No costs were awarded.
-
2006 (6) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35(F) of the Central Excise Act for entertaining appeals before the Tribunal.
2. Consideration of financial hardship by the Tribunal in directing pre-deposit.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Tribunal in its orders.
4. Validity of the impugned orders and the need for setting them aside.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a Textile Unit and its Director, were issued a notice under the Central Excise Act for recovery of a substantial amount. They appealed the assessment by the respondent No. 3 and approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- as a condition to entertain the appeals, citing Section 35(F) of the Central Excise Act.
2. The petitioners argued financial hardship and requested a waiver of the remaining pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal extended the time for pre-deposit but rejected the plea of financial hardship without providing adequate reasons. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's orders lacked a proper consideration of the petitioners' financial position and reasons for the pre-deposit requirement.
3. The High Court found that the Tribunal's orders were non-speaking, as they did not sufficiently address the specific arguments raised by the petitioners regarding financial hardship and tax audit reports indicating losses. The Tribunal failed to provide a detailed rationale for its decision, leading to the orders being deemed unsustainable.
4. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The petitioners were granted the liberty to present additional evidence supporting their case for relaxing the pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal was instructed to pass a new order within a reasonable timeframe, considering the evidence presented by the petitioners.
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the rule accordingly, without imposing any costs on the parties. The parties were directed to obtain an ordinary copy of the order for their records upon payment of usual copying charges.
-
2006 (6) TMI 119
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and subsequent revision under Section 129DD.
3. Restoration of appeal, remand, and final order allowing redemption of gold.
4. Subsequent revision under Section 129DD and imposition of redemption fine and confiscation order.
5. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the confiscation and fine imposition.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner arrived from Muscat with gold, claiming it was purchased from personal savings for business purposes. The gold was seized, and after due process, a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner appealed, obtained interim relief, but the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with deposit requirements.
2. A revision under Section 129DD was filed, resulting in the restoration of the appeal and a direction to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-. The remanded appeal was allowed, permitting redemption of 5 kg of gold on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and re-shipment of the balance on payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Subsequently, another revision was filed, leading to the restoration of the original penalty and a new redemption fine.
3. The respondent imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for 5 kg of gold and ordered confiscation of the balance. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing for treatment similar to other cases and citing the circumstances of carrying the gold due to a fellow passenger's absence.
4. The revenue contended that the entire gold import was contrary to a specific notification, justifying confiscation. The respondent's discretion in allowing redemption of 5 kg of gold was defended as reasonable and in line with the relevant notification. The Court upheld the respondent's decision, finding it reasonable and not warranting interference.
5. The Court, after considering the facts and relevant notification, concluded that the respondent's discretion in allowing the redemption of 5 kg of gold was reasonable. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Conclusion:
The Court upheld the respondent's decision to allow redemption of 5 kg of gold and found no merit in the petitioner's challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
............
|
9911796707
