|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 686 Records
-
2006 (2) TMI 647
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the special leave petition and granted leave. (2006 (2) TMI 647 - SC)
-
2006 (2) TMI 646
Exemption u/s 10B - profits derived from 100 per cent Export Oriented Undertaking ("EOU") - activity of software development and processing of data - HELD THAT:- The business structure and continuity of the business activity has to be seen and not the continuity of the same ownership of the undertaking. Thus, there is a difference between the ownership of the undertaking and the business activity of the undertaking and if the latter remains unaffected or unchanged by subsequent change in the ownership then it cannot be said that the business of the undertaking has been reconstructed.
Thus, the undertaking acquired by the assessee-company remained the same and the observation of the Assessing Officer that undertaking acquired by the company is nothing but reconstruction of business already in existence cannot be accepted.
So far as the conversion of firm into company is concerned, again it cannot be said that there was any transfer. On incorporation of company, consequences as per the provisions of Companies Act and other statutory provisions follow ensue. Thus, there is merely statutory vesting.
In the case of the assessee, neither the period of five years nor the block period of eight years expired when the amendment replacing the word ‘ten’ for ‘five’ was introduced by Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999. Since the assessee was entitled to exemption in the year in which amendment became effective and operative, the assessee will be entitled to the extended period of exemption because the period of five years had not exhausted up to assessment year 1999-2000. Since the right of the assessee was continuing in the year of amendment and was not lost on the date when the amendment came into existence, the view taken by the learned CIT(A) cannot be upheld.
So far as the objections of the learned CIT(A) regarding conduct of the assessee-firm in not claiming the exemption in earlier year is concerned, the approach of the learned CIT(A) raising this objection, cannot be legally justified because if the assessee is entitled to any benefit under any statutory provision then the past conduct cannot be relevant particularly when reference to such conduct is not made in the Act. The eligibility of the assessee has to be seen in the year in which the claim is preferred and if in earlier years the assessee waived his right then he cannot be stopped in claiming the benefit in the subsequent years.
The learned CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee did not file declaration exercising option prior to the due date for filing of return but filed it along with the return and, therefore, the assessee is disqualified from claiming exemption on this ground also. We do not find any force in such objection because this objection is merely of super-technical nature. Thus, we are unable to concur with the finding of learned CIT(A) and set aside the same. Consequently, we allow the ground of appeal taken by the assessee and direct that the assessee shall be entitled to claim exemption u/s 10B in the assessment year under consideration.
Thus, we allow the claim of assessee for exemption u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act. Grounds stand allowed accordingly.
In the result, Appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (2) TMI 645
Issues:
1. Imposition of service tax and penalties on an Architect.
2. Appeal against the penalties imposed under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Application of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for penalty imposition.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, an Architect, was subjected to service tax, interest, and penalties by the original authority, which were later revised and enhanced by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the tax liability and had no intention to evade taxes, pleading for a reduction in the enhanced penalty.
2. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner failed to consider Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides relief from penalties if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure. The appellant had paid the tax and interest in full, neutralizing any pecuniary advantage gained. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's case fell under the purview of Section 80, and the revised penalty was deemed unduly harsh for a small taxpayer.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restoring the penalty amount under Section 76 to the originally determined &8377; 4,000. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's compliance with tax payment and the provisions of Section 80 warranted a reduction in the penalty. Thus, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant in line with the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case.
-
2006 (2) TMI 644
Issues:
Interpretation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act based on manufacturing activity claim.
Analysis:
The case revolved around the interpretation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act concerning the manufacturing activity claim made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA, citing the results of proceedings by the Central excise authorities, which indicated no manufacturing activities but stock transfers and sales invoices. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a thorough investigation to verify the manufacturing claim, leading to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80-IA.
Subsequently, the Revenue appealed the Commissioner's decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the assessee's own statements to the Central excise authorities contradicted the manufacturing claim. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to refute the manufacturing activity claim. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of on-site verification by the Assessing Officer or the Central excise authorities at the factory premises in Pondicherry, where the alleged manufacturing activities took place.
The High Court, in its judgment, supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the factual findings indicated the existence of manufacturing activities based on the machinery and raw materials used by the assessee. The Court concluded that since the assessee was engaged in manufacturing telephone cables joining kits, the claim for deduction under section 80-IA was justified. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the tax cases, stating that no substantial question of law warranted further consideration. The connected matter was also closed without costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 643
Issues:
Application for bail in N.D.P.S. Special Case, Interpretation of NDPS Act provisions, Association of applicant with drug marketing firm, Possession and transportation of seized drugs, Relevance of Importer and Exporter Code, Prohibition under NDPS Act and Rules, Definition of Psychotropic Substance, Grant of bail based on statutory interpretation.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for bail by the third accused in an N.D.P.S. Special Case. The prosecution's case involves the arrest of two Nigerian nationals at an airport with a large quantity of Fortwin Injections. The accused is alleged to have sold them a portion of the seized drugs. The defense argues that the accused's association with a licensed drug marketing firm exempts him from NDPS Act violations. The defense highlights the Importer and Exporter Code held by the firm and the absence of specific allegations under relevant NDPS Act sections. The defense contends that the accused's actions are not prohibited under the Act. The prosecution, however, asserts the accused's involvement as an associate of the firm and his role in the drug transactions. The trial judge denied bail based on the accused's actions falling under NDPS Act offenses.
The High Court judge, after reviewing the arguments, finds that the accused's situation mirrors a previous case where the accused's association with a licensed drug firm was a crucial factor. The judge emphasizes the accused's authorized signatory status with the firm and the legal operations conducted by the firm. The judge examines the provisions of the NDPS Act and rules regarding psychotropic substances, noting the absence of the seized drug in the prohibited list. The defense's argument that the accused's actions do not contravene the Act's prohibitions forms the basis for granting bail. The judge emphasizes that the Act's restrictions must align with individual operations and the specific substance involved for bail considerations.
In the final order, the High Court grants bail to the accused, setting conditions such as a bail amount, attendance at specified offices, surrender of passport, and cooperation with investigative authorities. The court modifies a reporting requirement to align with the accused's residence location. The judgment underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the applicability of NDPS Act provisions to specific cases and the need for aligning individual actions with the Act's prohibitions for bail decisions.
-
2006 (2) TMI 642
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Commissioner of Central Excise regarding classification of exempted by-products.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
3. Treatment of disputed products as by-products or final products.
4. Consideration of by-products for CENVAT credit.
5. Distinction between exempted by-products and dutiable final products under CENVAT Credit Rules.
Issue 1: Challenge to Commissioner's Order
The appellants contested the Commissioner's decision that exempted by-products emerging during the manufacture of refined oil should be considered final products subject to payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The Commissioner held that even though the goods were by-products, they were cleared, purchased, and sold as final products, thus attracting the 8% charge.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b)
The appellants argued that the disputed products were not intended final products but incidental in the manufacturing process of refined edible oil. They emphasized that the goods should be treated as by-products and not as final products as per Rule 6(3)(b) provisions.
Issue 3: Treatment of Disputed Products
The Revenue representative contended that Rule 6 did not explicitly accommodate by-products and all products arising from the manufacturing process should be treated as final products, regardless of being referred to as by-products. The argument centered on the lack of distinction between final products and by-products under the Rule.
Issue 4: CENVAT Credit for By-Products
The appellants relied on CBEC instructions and case laws to support their claim for CENVAT credit for inputs used in the manufacturing of exempted by-products. They argued that the credit should be allowed as long as inputs were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, directly or indirectly.
Issue 5: Distinction Between Exempted By-Products and Dutiable Final Products
The Tribunal, considering CBEC instructions and precedents, concluded that a distinction could be made between final products and by-products. Relying on previous case law, the Tribunal allowed credit for inputs consumed in the manufacturing of by-products, which were incidental to the production of the main duty-paying product, refined edible oil. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2006 (2) TMI 641
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Appellant's locus standi to file the writ petition.
3. Alleged violation of guidelines by the respondents regarding the transfer of shares.
4. Role of the Reserve Bank of India and its guidelines in the transfer of shares.
5. Jurisdiction of the court in private banking company matters.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court examined whether the writ petition filed by the appellant was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was concluded that private banking companies, like the second respondent, typically do not fall under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226. The court referenced the decision in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. V. Sagar Thomas and others (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4325), which emphasized that private companies are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless there is a violation of statutory provisions. The court noted that the appellant's case did not involve any statutory non-compliance that would justify the issuance of a writ.
2. Appellant's locus standi to file the writ petition:
The court addressed whether the appellant, a registered society, had the locus standi to file the writ petition. It was determined that the appellant did not have a personal grievance in the matter and that only its members could potentially have a grievance. The court cited the decision in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2001 SC 1739), which states that a writ petition should generally be filed by someone personally affected by the impugned order. The court concluded that the appellant, being a stranger to the contract between the shareholders and the respondents, lacked the standing to maintain the writ petition.
3. Alleged violation of guidelines by the respondents regarding the transfer of shares:
The appellant argued that the respondents 2 to 5 were attempting to transfer 95,418 shares contrary to the guidelines issued by the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The court noted that the appellant claimed that the respondents were violating these guidelines and that such transfers would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant and the interest of the depositors, clients, and employees of the second respondent bank. However, the court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any direct violation of statutory provisions that would warrant judicial intervention.
4. Role of the Reserve Bank of India and its guidelines in the transfer of shares:
The court acknowledged the regulatory role of the RBI in maintaining fiscal discipline and overseeing the functioning of banking companies. It was noted that the RBI had refused to acknowledge the transfer of the shares in question. However, the court emphasized that such regulatory measures do not equate to participatory dominance or control over the private banking company's affairs. The court reiterated that the primary motive of private banking companies is to earn profits, and their activities are not typically subject to writ jurisdiction unless there is a statutory violation.
5. Jurisdiction of the court in private banking company matters:
The court concluded that private banking companies, like the second respondent, are not ordinarily subject to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The decision in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. V. Sagar Thomas and others was cited to support this conclusion. The court emphasized that regulatory measures by the RBI do not imply state control over private banking companies, and the writ jurisdiction should be sparingly used, primarily when there is a clear statutory violation or infringement of rights.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the learned single judge's decision that the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition. The court reiterated that the powers under Article 226 should be used sparingly and only in clear cases where rights have been seriously infringed and no other adequate remedy is available. The writ petition was deemed not maintainable as the appellant did not demonstrate any statutory violation or personal grievance. The connected WAMPs were also closed.
-
2006 (2) TMI 640
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974.
2. Amount payable for fruit-bearing trees on surrendered land.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and relevant notifications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope and Ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974:
The appellants held land exceeding the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. They surrendered surplus land with cashew nut tree plantations. The dispute centered on the amount payable for fruit-bearing trees on this surrendered land. Rule 11 of the Ceiling Rules specifies that the amount payable for fruit-bearing trees should be at the seignorage rates notified by the District Forest Officer applicable to the district from time to time.
2. Amount Payable for Fruit-Bearing Trees on Surrendered Land:
The appellants argued they were entitled to compensation for 30 years, whereas the authorities contended it was only for one year. The High Court had accepted the State's view that the amount was payable for one year only. However, the Supreme Court noted that the relevant notifications published in the Nellore District Gazettes on 21.3.1982 and 23.4.1982 clarified that the seignorage rates were to be calculated for 30 years. Specifically, the notification dated 23.4.1982 stated, "The seignorage rate per tree is to be calculated for 30 years."
3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Relevant Notifications:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes to ascertain the legislature's intent. The Court stated, "It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous." The Court criticized the High Court's acceptance of the State's interpretation, which limited the compensation to one year. The Supreme Court clarified that the statutory provisions and notifications clearly indicated that compensation should be calculated from the 5th to the 30th year of the tree's age.
The Court underscored that the trees were 12 years old at the time of surrender, and thus, compensation should be calculated for the remaining 18 years. The amount payable for each 12-year-old cashew tree at the seignorage rates, as per the Notification dated 21.3.1982 (amended by Notification dated 23.4.1982), was determined to be Rs. 85 multiplied by the remaining age of the tree (18 years), totaling Rs. 1530 per tree.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the remaining 18 years of the trees' productive life, not just one year. The amount was to be paid within three months along with any other statutory entitlements. No costs were awarded.
-
2006 (2) TMI 639
Whether appellants detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 valid?
Whether order of detention was justified, even though the appellant was in custody on the date of issuance of the order of detention?
-
2006 (2) TMI 638
Issues:
- Interpretation of Circular dated 31.1.1986 by Indore Development Authority.
- Eligibility criteria for benefits under the Circular.
- Denial of benefits to the appellant.
- Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Legal rights of the appellant regarding land ownership.
- Comparison with other similarly situated societies.
- Relevance of possession and registration for availing benefits.
- Judicial review of High Court's decision.
Interpretation of Circular dated 31.1.1986 by Indore Development Authority:
The case revolves around the interpretation of Circular dated 31.1.1986 issued by the Indore Development Authority, allowing Housing Co-operative Societies to utilize land for house construction. The Circular outlined conditions for availing benefits, including registration requirements and possession transfer to the Authority.
Eligibility criteria for benefits under the Circular:
The eligibility criteria specified in the Circular required societies to be registered and purchase land before a specific declaration. The conditions were deemed cumulative, necessitating both registration and land purchase before the declaration. The appellant failed to fulfill these requirements, leading to denial of benefits.
Denial of benefits to the appellant:
The appellant was denied benefits under the Circular as it did not meet the prerequisite conditions, including land ownership and possession transfer. Despite claiming to be an interested society, the appellant's legal rights were questioned, resulting in the dismissal of its Writ Petition.
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The appellant argued that denial of benefits amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing equal treatment under the law. However, the courts maintained that the appellant's lack of compliance with the Circular's conditions justified the denial of benefits.
Legal rights of the appellant regarding land ownership:
The appellant's legal rights concerning land ownership were scrutinized, with the courts emphasizing the importance of fulfilling conditions outlined in the Circular. The appellant's status as a potential purchaser without ownership or possession hindered its entitlement to benefits.
Comparison with other similarly situated societies:
The appellant cited instances of other societies receiving benefits despite similar circumstances. However, the courts rejected this argument, stating that each case must be evaluated based on compliance with prescribed conditions rather than comparison with unrelated cases.
Relevance of possession and registration for availing benefits:
The Circular mandated the transfer of possession to the Authority for availing benefits, highlighting the significance of possession and registration for eligibility. The appellant's failure to meet these requirements further solidified the denial of benefits.
Judicial review of High Court's decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the correctness of the judgment based on the appellant's non-compliance with the Circular's conditions. The Court dismissed the appeal, asserting that no grounds existed for granting relief to the appellant.
-
2006 (2) TMI 637
Issues:
1. Quashing of order by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2002-03.
2. Quashing of penalty proceedings by the same authority.
3. Issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act by Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals) instead of Assessing Officer.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order dated 13-1-2006 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2002-03. The High Court heard arguments from both parties' counsels. It was acknowledged that the petitioner had already filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Tribunal against the said order, which was pending consideration. Additionally, an application for expeditious disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal was also pending, with a fixed date of 3rd March, 2006 for its disposal. The Court expected the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order on the application.
2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act was issued for the first time by the Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals), and no penalty proceeding was initiated by the Assessing Officer during the assessment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed that, until the appeal before the Tribunal was disposed of, the penalty proceedings could be finalized, but the penalty order should not be served on the petitioner.
3. The High Court, with the direction given in the case, disposed of the writ petition finally, without imposing any costs on either party. The judgment addressed the issues of quashing the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2002-03, the quashing of penalty proceedings by the same authority, and the issuance of the penalty notice by the Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals) instead of the Assessing Officer. The Court provided a balanced approach by allowing the penalty proceedings to be completed but preventing the service of the penalty order on the petitioner until the appeal before the Tribunal was resolved.
-
2006 (2) TMI 636
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acceptance of the appellant's offer for voluntary retirement.
2. Alleged withdrawal of the offer for voluntary retirement by the appellant.
3. Allegations of coercion and assault against the Fifth Respondent.
4. Procedural compliance under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
5. Allegations of bias against the Fifth Respondent.
6. Suppression of material facts by the appellant.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the acceptance of the appellant's offer for voluntary retirement:
The appellant, a Head Constable in Haryana Police, submitted an application on 29.05.2000 expressing his intention to retire voluntarily effective from 31.08.2000. The application cited a disability due to a leg fracture as the reason for his retirement. The offer was accepted by an order dated 24.08.2000, permitting the appellant to proceed on voluntary retirement after the expiry of the notice period.
2. Alleged withdrawal of the offer for voluntary retirement by the appellant:
The appellant contended that he had withdrawn his offer for voluntary retirement on 24.08.2000 by filing an application forwarded to the Superintendent of Police by the Lines Officer. However, the High Court found that the appellant had submitted an affidavit on 01.09.2000, stating he had proceeded on voluntary retirement. The High Court concluded that the appellant had not effectively communicated the withdrawal of his retirement request, thus, the acceptance of his voluntary retirement stood valid.
3. Allegations of coercion and assault against the Fifth Respondent:
The appellant alleged that he was assaulted by the Fifth Respondent on 24.08.2000, who forcibly obtained an acknowledgment from him on the order of retirement. The Fifth Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that the appellant's application for voluntary retirement was processed in accordance with the rules. The High Court rejected the appellant's claims of coercion, finding no substantive evidence to support the allegations.
4. Procedural compliance under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934:
The appellant argued that the Lines Officer should have made an entry in the requisite register upon receiving the withdrawal application as per clause 12.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, noting that if the appellant had taken back his application after submitting it to the Lines Officer, no entry in the register was required. Moreover, this issue was not raised in the writ petition or during the High Court proceedings, and thus could not be entertained for the first time at this stage.
5. Allegations of bias against the Fifth Respondent:
The appellant claimed that the Fifth Respondent was biased. However, the Supreme Court noted that such allegations were only raised in the grounds of the writ petition and were not verified in accordance with the writ rules. The Fifth Respondent denied these allegations in his affidavit. The High Court, relying on the affidavit evidence, found no merit in the appellant's claims of bias.
6. Suppression of material facts by the appellant:
The High Court observed that the appellant had suppressed material facts, including the affidavit dated 01.09.2000, wherein he confirmed his voluntary retirement. The High Court concluded that the appellant had attempted to manipulate the official record to obtain a favorable order. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct disqualified him from any relief.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the withdrawal of his voluntary retirement, allegations of coercion, procedural non-compliance, and bias. The appellant's suppression of material facts further undermined his case.
-
2006 (2) TMI 635
Whether in terms of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 the penalty imposed on the respondent was permissible in law?
Whether the penalty imposed by the President upon taking into consideration the report filed by the Enquiry Officer, was under clauses (iii) and (iii)(a) or clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules?
-
2006 (2) TMI 634
Whether Act 10 of 1998 seeking to amend provisions of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 shall not apply to the writ petitioners and they would continue to have the "infancy protection" for the period of 3 years starting from the date of establishment of the industry?
-
2006 (2) TMI 633
Issues Involved:
The appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-5-2004 allowing a refund claim rejected by Order in Originals.
Summary:
Issue 1: Refund Claim for Service Tax Payment
The respondents, Small Scale Industries, availed services of Goods Transport Operators and deposited Service Tax under the belief it was required. A retrospective amendment exempted Small Scale Industries from Service Tax. The refund claim for the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 was allowed, but claims for other periods were rejected as time-barred. The appellate authority held the refund should be granted, leading to the appeal.
Issue 2: Time Limit for Refund Claim
The Department Representative argued that the refund claim should have been filed within the statutory time limit since the respondents paid the amount as Service Tax. Citing relevant case laws, the DR emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for refund claims.
Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the respondents, being Small Scale Industries, were not liable to pay Service Tax for the period in question due to a retrospective amendment. The department had erroneously collected the tax, and the respondents were not obligated to pay it. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal affirmed that the provisions for refund of Service Tax did not apply in this situation. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly relied on this precedent and concluded that the respondents were entitled to a refund. The case laws cited by the DR were deemed irrelevant as they did not address the specific issue of an amount not payable as Tax. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the order-in-appeal granting the refund to the respondents.
-
2006 (2) TMI 632
Issues: Challenge to tribunal orders, condonation of delay, violation of principles of natural justice
Challenge to Tribunal Orders:
The petition challenged orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs. The petitioners sought to challenge the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT and violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners contended that they were not aware of the Order-in-Appeal due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of the individual handling the matter, leading to a delay in filing the appeal.
Condonation of Delay:
The petitioners filed an appeal before CESTAT challenging the Order-in-Appeal after discovering it through communications from the Range Superintendent. However, CESTAT declined to condone the delay of 455 days and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners submitted various reasons for the delay, emphasizing that there was no willful default on their part and that they had not received any notice of personal hearing from the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioners sought to explain the circumstances that led to the delay in filing the appeal.
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court noted that the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents were unable to provide evidence of serving a notice of hearing to the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the Order-in-Appeal was vitiated on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the Order-in-Appeal and directed the matter to be restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing the petitioners with a proper opportunity of hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal orders were also quashed and set aside in light of the violation of natural justice.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the matter after affording the petitioners a fair opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative and appellate proceedings.
-
2006 (2) TMI 631
Whether the scheme of subsidies (known as the "Retention Price Scheme") granted by the Respondent-Union of India (hereinafter "the Government") to fertilizer manufacturers, could be retrospectively modified to the detriment of these manufacturers?
-
2006 (2) TMI 630
Whether the direction of the learned Single Judge, as confirmed by the Division Bench, to consider the cases of respondents under the Circular dated 1.9.1988 cannot be sustained?
Whether the petitioners in the writ petition were entitled to the relief of regularization/absorption and without fixing any time frame for deciding the matter?
-
2006 (2) TMI 629
The High Court Bombay sanctioned a scheme under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the transfer of company properties and reduction of share capital. The Regional Director confirmed compliance with relevant provisions and stated the scheme is not prejudicial to creditors or shareholders. The petition was granted, with costs fixed at Rs. 2,500.
-
2006 (2) TMI 628
Penalty - Service tax escaped assessment - coal handling services come under the purview of service tax? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellants have discharged their service tax liability and the interest leviable thereon before the issuance of show cause notice. Appellants have ascertained the service tax liability on their own and paid it off which is admitted by the department in Order-in-Original.
Further, the provisions also state that even the service tax is ascertained by the Central Excise officers and if it is paid of by the assessee in that case also the appellants should not be served upon any notice under sub-section (1). Considering both the situations, the appellants case is covered under the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 73 for non-issuance of show cause notice to the appellants. When the provisions themselves do not contemplate issuance of show cause notice when tax liability is discharged to my mind, the issuance of show cause notice in this case by the department is beyond the provisions of the Act.
In view of the above Order-in-Appeal deserves to be set aside. I set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allow the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief, if any. Appeal allowed.
........
|
9911796707
