TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
February 11, 2014
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
Customs
Service Tax
Central Excise
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
TMI SMS
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Income Tax:
As per DTAA between India and UAE - Tax has been defined in Article-2(2)(b) as per which income tax included surcharge and education cess. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Whether providing a bank guarantee would amount to payment of a liability u/s 43B - Held no - HC
-
Income Tax:
Provision for custom duty when litigation is pending - The subject liability is clearly a contingent liability and squarely falls within the definition of the expression contingent liability as defined under the Accounting Standard 29 issued by ICAI - HC
-
Income Tax:
Deletion made u/s 68 of the Act – he assessee company could not be forced to adduce more evidence which was beyond the control of the assessee company - AT
-
Income Tax:
If the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public, the purpose would be a charitable purpose; and that when an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry, that object becomes an object of public utility. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Rehabilitation expenses – Revenue or capital - evacuation from the danger zone has been done in accordance with the lease agreement and in discharge of the statutory obligations - revenue in nature - AT
-
Customs:
Refund of duty paid on capital goods on conversion from 100% EOU scheme to EPCG scheme - period of limitation to be reckoned from the date of payment of duty. This cannot be changed to some other date depending on the situation - AT
-
Service Tax:
Classification - Extended period of limiation - Change in the opinion of Audit Wing - prima facie demand beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable - HC
-
Service Tax:
Just as levy of taxes is an attribute of sovereign power, adjudication of disputes is equally an important attribute of the same species. - The only difference is while the former partakes the character of the right of the sovereign Government, the latter is in the form of its duty. Unless it is tempered with an element of reasonableness, the adjudicatory mechanism is prone to be just an eye-wash - HC
-
Service Tax:
Appellant's barges are utilized for movement of cargo from ship to shore and vice versa and that the appellant is charging the consideration per tonnage of the goods hauled - prima facie case is against the assessee - AT
-
Service Tax:
Duty demand on the land owners shares of construction - Assesse failed to produce the evidence in support of their contention and the Commissioner was justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices - stay granted partly - AT
-
Service Tax:
Denial of Cenvat credit – credit cannot be denied on the input service on the mere ground of non-mention of registration number in the invoices - stay granted on this count - AT
-
Central Excise:
Rectification of mistake - mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning - while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided - HC
-
Central Excise:
Waiver of a pre-deposit of duty - fabrication and erection of structural glazing - curtain wall/structural glazing - stay granted - HC
-
Central Excise:
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - merely writing off value of the inputs in their books, they could not be denied the credits, when inputs were still lying in their factory premises - AT
-
Central Excise:
The word wrongly means that there was no deliberate Act by the appellant - appellant is entitled to not to impose penalty - AT
-
Central Excise:
Whether by adopting the process of edge cutting of the tubular form of PVC film, the appellant can be said to have undertaken the process of manufacture - Held no - AT
-
Central Excise:
Denial of refund claim -if credit is admissible in a particular month, it will be admissible in preceding and succeeding month also and exporter can claim refund after nine months, which will obviously not relate to export of goods in same month - AT
-
Central Excise:
Penalty u/s 11AC - intentionally versus wrongly. - Both are contrary terms. If the credit is taken intentionally then it cannot be taken wrongly but if it is mentioned wrongly then it cannot be intentionally - AT
-
Central Excise:
CENVAT Credit availed by an assessee either in respect of BED or in respect of AED can be utilised for payment of any duty of excise on any final product. - AT
-
Central Excise:
Recovery of government dues of Central Excise duty from subsequent buyer of the land is not required to be paid, in case the subsequent buyer has purchased the premises in an auction from third person - AT
-
VAT:
Rate of tax - Tax on sale of loudspeaker - loud speakers which do not form accessory to any electronic item, only are covered by Entry 134 and loud speakers constituting accessory of electronic goods like stereo, car stereos and radios are covered by Entry 55. - HC
Articles
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2014 (2) TMI 381
Disallowance of Interest – Held that:- The assessee made payments of interest to its overseas branches and also to others – the issue was not examined thoroughly during the assessment proceedings, considering the non attendance of the assessee and supply the relevant details - The request of the assessee is accepted for remanding the issue to the files of the AO for fresh examining after considering the Act/treaty – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of interest paid to Head Office and to other overseas branches - The issue for adjudication revolves around the prayer of remanding after setting aside the findings of the AO/DRP – there was merit in the prayer of the assessee - thus, the order of the AO and the DRP-1 and remand the matter to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 380
Transfer Pricing Adjustment u/s 92CA(4) of the Act – Various expenses incurred – Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act - Cost of funds utilized – Held that:- TPO has proceeded to draw an adverse inference against the assessee on the premise that JV agreement was not filed, whereas the assessee has demonstrated from the paper book that JV agreement was filed - The DRP has confirmed the action of assessing officer/TPO in this behalf without giving any finding. Disallowance u/s 14A the assessee's main claim has not been examined i.e. about the equity participation being a business decision and it was not investment to earn any exempt income – thus, it will be desirable and in the interest of justice to set aside both the issues to the file of assessing officer to consider the same afresh after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 379
Education cess and surcharge – Whether the rate of TAX as per DTAA is inclusive of Education Cess and Surcharge – Held that:- The decision in Sunil V. Motiani Versus Income tax Officer(International Taxation) -4(1) Mumbai [2013 (12) TMI 1105 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed - The non-resident assessee has earned interest from partnership firm in India – As per article 11(2) if recipient is beneficial owner of interest, tax so charged shall not exceed 5% of gross interest if the interest is paid by the bank and in other cases 12.5% of the gross interest - The assessee is the beneficial owner of interest and tax charged cannot exceed 12.5% of gross interest – As per DTAA between India and UAE - Tax has been defined in Article-2(2)(b) as per which income tax included surcharge - Therefore, tax referred to in Article 11(2) @ 12.5% also includes surcharge and education cess - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 378
Whether additional custom duty is contingent liability - litigation is pending - Held that:- The liability of the assessee to pay the additional customs duty is contingent upon the importers being called upon to pay the same - There is a possibility that the importers may fail before the Supreme Court and the writ petition may be rejected - In such event, the importers may be called upon to pay the disputed amount of tax as a consequence of which the assessee may become liable to pay the same on behalf of the importers - The subject liability is clearly a contingent liability and squarely falls within the definition of the expression contingent liability as defined under the Accounting Standard 29 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India - Decided against assessee. Whether providing a bank guarantee would amount to payment of a liability u/s 43B - Held that:- Although, the assessee is obliged to pay the additional customs duty as and when the importers are called upon to pay the same, nonetheless, it cannot be considered as a statutory liability because the same is not imposed on the assessee by virtue of any statute - Section 43B applies only in cases of statutory liability - A deduction with respect to a statutory liability is allowed only on payment of the same - Provisions of section 43B are not applicable here. Relying upon the decision in CIT v. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd [2009 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT] - The requirement of Section 43B of the Act is the actual payment and not deemed payment - As per section 43B - The amount payable must be by way of tax, duty and cess under any law for the time being in force - The bank guarantee is nothing but a guarantee for payment on some happening and that cannot be actual payment which requires that money must flow from the assessee to the public exchequer as required under Section 43B - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 377
Tax effect of appeal - Held that:- No notice under Sections 148/143 (2) or 142 (2) was issued to the assessee before he had surrendered the gift or filed the revised return - It cannot be said to be concealment of income merely because he surrendered certain amount to buy peace with the department - The tax effect in the present appeal being less than Rs. 4 lacs and the case being covered by the Circular dated 24/10/2005, this appeal cannot be entertained - Decided against petitioner.
-
2014 (2) TMI 376
Depreciation on plant and machinery - Held that:- The Tribunal ought to have decided the issue at that level and there was no need of second remand - The assessee has no new material to produce before the CIT (Appeals) in connection with its claim - The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has granted additional opportunity to the assessee to produce material on record regarding connectivity of the new unit and the production of soda ash and other material with the aid of such machinery - The Tribunal is requested to decide afresh the issues on the basis of the existing material - Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2014 (2) TMI 375
Assessment of professional income - Held that:- The assessing officer did not rely upon any material while making addition in respect of possible commission the assessee could have obtained during the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 - The agency commission is always a fluctuated matter and depends upon the commission on receipts for arranging a particular contract - In the absence of any material to indicate that the assessee had derived such commission and it was concealed, it is not open for the assessing officer to make an assessment based on notional figures - The appellate authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the addition was improper - Both the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on presumptive basis and without any supporting materials - The order of Tribunal is confirmed - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 374
Addition on estimated sale from project - Held that:- As per the facts compiled, the total sale consideration Rs.345 lakhs has been correctly disclosed in the audited accounts as on March 31, 2007 - The income stated as per the statement recorded on March 13, 2007, has been approximately 95 lakhs as against returned taxable income at Rs.99 lakhs - The AO has not correctly appreciated the facts while estimating the income by ignoring the audited book - The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the impugned addition made by the AO on account of estimated sale profits from the project - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of cost of project - Held that:- The cost of project land was disallowed by the AO on the basis of the sheet of paper "Annexure A" found during the survey which contained the estimated account for the period 14.03.2006 to 31.03.2007 and as on the date of survey, the accounts are not complete - The authorities are not justified to make/confirm the disallowance on the false presumption based on the said sheet of paper found during the survey when the assessee is entitled for deducting the cost of acquisition the project land - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 373
Deletion made u/s 68 of the Act – Loan made to creditor - Held that:- The necessary details and confirmations from the person namely Mr. Abdul H. Gazdar, who advanced loans to the assessee company, were duly produced and brought on record and the source of money of said creditor Mr. Aamir Gazdar was duly proved on the file - The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had successfully explained the name, complete addresses, identity, PAN details, credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions between the assessee company and its immediate creditor Mr. Aamir Gazdar - The creditor Mr. Aamir Gazdar had further explained the source of money by way of loans, gifts received from various persons whose PAN, income details had been furnished - the assessee company could not be forced to adduce more evidence which was beyond the control of the assessee company - The CIT(A) has held that the assessee company has not only proved the genuineness of the transaction but also the credit worthiness and source of money of its creditor Mr. Aamir Gazdar and also further confirmations as of loan as well as genuineness of transaction of the source of creditor of creditor namely Mr. Abdul H. Gazdar – there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 372
Bad debts written off - Held that:- Relying upon the decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ] - As per the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.1989 - In order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable - It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication.
-
2014 (2) TMI 371
Admitting additional evidence - Held that:- Proper opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant - A perusal of the reply dated December 31, 2007 and the evidences enclosed therewith show that all these documents and evidences were necessary for the ld. A.O. to adjudicate the issues on which additions to the income of the appellant was made - The assessee was not given sufficient time and opportunity to reply to the queries of AO and file documentary evidence in support - The order of CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence filed before him, keeping in view the principles of natural justice - Decided against Revenue. It cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even if public welfare is intended to be served; that if the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public, the purpose would be a charitable purpose; and that when an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry, that object becomes an object of public utility. Whether the activities of the trust are charitable in nature - Held that:- The assessee society was a member of the World LPG Association to achieve its object of providing an update on the events and development in the field of oil and gas applicable to Government regulators and its members and to conduct studies of public utility - The World LPG Gas Association also became a member of the assessee society - The membership was required for attaining the objects of the assessee society - as regards the payment received by the assessee during World LPG Association, this amount was towards membership fee and did not quality to be a foreign contribution. - Decided in favor of assessee. Violations of the provisions of section 13 - Assessee organized seminar alongwith CA firm, which was devoted to enhancing education on the subject of E&P Accounting in India, a matter of public interest - The seminar was not only for members but for non-members as well including professionals - The rent paid by the assessee to IOC was reasonable as the valuation of the rent was done by a Government approved valuer - The assessee paid charges to IOC for conducting guest lectures which were also at arms length price - The assessee had duly furnished supporting documents before the Ld. CIT (A), showing that the payment was less than the charges of other conference halls like under the Habitat Centre and Scope Complex - These payments have been found to be in accordance with the services rendered - The department has failed to refute the findings of CIT(A) - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 370
Disallowance of unverifiable cash expenses - Held that:- All the expenses incurred by the assessee toward the same, whether reimbursed separately by his clients or not, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 37(1) or any other specific provision of the Act in the computation of the business income u/s.28 - The assessee failed to substantiate his claim that a profit to that extent (25%) could not be possible in the claim made by it on its customers, who reimburse the said expenses - Decided against assessee. Compensation paid - Held that:- This is a case of application of income enjoined by the assessee's father through a testamentary document - There is no scope for claiming the same either as a business deduction u/s. 37(1) or u/s.28, and the same stands rightly disallowed - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) - Held that:- The assessee has not discharged the onus on it to establish that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his business - The expenditure has not been allowed by the Revenue in earlier years as well - The assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and bonafide of the expenses - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 369
Disallowance of interest on borrowed capital - Held that:- Relying upon the decision in D & H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd v. CIT [1982 (7) TMI 59 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - Under s. 36(1)(iii), to sustain a claim for deduction of the amount of interest, all that is necessary is that the capital must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession of the assessee and, thirdly, that the assessee should have paid that amount by way of interest - The assessee has fulfilled all the three conditions laid down u/s 36(1)(iii) to avail allowance of interest on borrowed capital - The AO was not justified in disallowing the interest debited to P&L A/c by 15% on adhoc basis - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 368
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The issue of long term capital gains vs. business income is a debatable issue and, there is no "concealment of the income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" which are the main ingredients to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act - On debatable issue no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied - The mere fact that a claim made by the appellant has been disallowed by the AO ipso-facto does not lead to the imposition of penalty - All the details given in the return of income were correct and there was a no concealment of income nor were any inaccurate particulars of such income were furnished - The same amount of income as returned by the assessee has been assessed albeit under a different head - The only dispute therefore was the head under which the income returned should be taxed - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 367
Stay of demand - Held that:- The outstanding demand stayed on certain terms and conditions - The revenue proposed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores in two equal installments of Rs. 2.5 crores each on or before 28th February, 2014 - The assessee agreed for the same - The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2.5 crores on or before 14th February, 2014 and another amount of Rs. 2.5 crores on or before 28th February, 2014 - The remaining outstanding demand is stayed for 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the assessee in IT(TP) No. 1/JP/2013 - The registry is also directed to fix the above said appeal of the assessee out of turn on priority basis - Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2014 (2) TMI 366
Income from share trading - Business income or capital gains - Held that:- The assessee had been consistently trading in shares for the last 25 years and the income arising from F&O transactions and daily trading in shares had been reflected consistently as speculative business - In the case of deliver based transaction of sale and purchases of shares had been shown as capital gains i.e. LTCG ad STCG, depending upon the period of holding - If the balance sheet of the assessee is analysed, it reflects holidng of shares as investment (one portfolio) - The Department consistently had been accepting the claim of the assessee from long term capital gain - Relying upon the decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, where a issue has been decided consistently in earlier assessment years in particular manner, the same view should prevail in subsequent years unless there is a material change in facts. Relying upon the decision in Shantilal M Jain vs ACIT [2011 (4) TMI 42 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Despite large volume of shares transactions, the Assessing Officer cannot ignore the rule of consistency to treat the gains on sale of shares as STCG - The assessee made investment in shares with intention to earn dividend income on appreciation of price of shares - It cannot be said that the assessee was doing business - The assessee has hold the shares in his books as investor, was not having office or administrative set up, no interest was paid on the funds and there was not a single instance where the assessee squared up the transactions on the same without taking the delivery of shares. As per the Board Circular No. 4.2007 dated 15- 06-2007 - It is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolios namely, an Investment Portfolio, comprising of Securities, which are to be treated as capital assets and ‘Trading Portfolio’ comprising of stock in trade which are to be treated as trade assets - No single principle would be decisive and the fact has to be considered in entirety - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 365
Confirmation of disallowance of mark-to-market loss – Held that:- The decision in M/s. Indsec Securities & Finance Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (1) TMI 1382 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed - It is not only the actual stock but derivatives can also be held as stock in trade and the principle "cost or market price whichever is lower" has been rightly followed by the assessee in valuing the derivatives and further when the derivates are held as stock in trade then whatever rules apply to the stock in trade will have to apply to their valuation also - While anticipated loss is taken into account while valuation of closing stock, anticipated profit in the shape of appreciated value of the closing stock is not brought into account, as not prudent trader would care to show increased profits before actual realization – thus, mark to market losses on account of trading in derivative transactions are allowable deductions – Decided in favor of Assessee. Deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act – Interest received on FDRs – Held that:- The decision in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [2003 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] followed - interest income is not directly flowing from the Industrial Undertaking as such deduction for the same is not allowable - the words 'derived from' in Section 80HH must be understood as something which has direct or immediate nexus with the appellant's industrial undertaking. Although electricity may be required for the purposes of the industrial undertaking, the deposit required for its supply is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking - The derivation of profits on the deposit made with Electricity Board cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself and concluded that the interest earned by industrial undertaking on deposits with Electricity Board does not qualify for relief – the order of the CIT(A) set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 364
Nature of expenses – Revenue or capital - Relief granted on rehabilitation expenses – Held that:- The expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in the normal course of its regular activity of mining - the assessee has incurred the expenditure in relation to the property in respect of which it has only leasehold rights - The expenditure incurred by the assessee for shifting the railway station, track, etc. i.e., to remove an obstruction to facilitate the business of mining, in accordance with the terms of lease, was held to be of revenue nature - such expenditure did not bring into existence any advantage of an enduring nature - The evacuation from the danger zone has been done in accordance with the lease agreement and in discharge of the statutory obligations imposed, as a pre- requisite for the assessee to carry on the mining operations on the lease hold lands - There was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that rehabilitation expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue expenditure and it is not a capital expenditure – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 363
Prior period expenses - Held that:- The expenses of the preceding financial are not allowed as deduction - This year does not contain any expenses disallowed u/s 43B which are to be allowed on actual payment basis - The order of CIT(A) set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue. Repair expenses - Held that:- Relying upon the decision in National Industrial Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [2002 (8) TMI 93 - DELHI High Court] - Ad hoc disallowance cannot be resorted to in the absence of any specific discrepancy noted in the details submitted by the assessee - AO has failed to identify the expenses and amounts where there was any discrepancy - Decided against Revenue. Commission paid to Managing director - Held that:- The payment has been made in accordance with Schedule-XIII of the Companies Act, 1956 and this payment has also been approved by the Board of Directors and shareholders of the company - It was unjustified to make an ad hoc disallowance from the total payment to the whole time Managing Director of the company - Decided against Revenue. Depreciation on machinery and wind electric generator - Held that:- Relying upon the decision in Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 53 - ITAT DELHI] - The physical examination shows that machinery do exist in the premises of assessee as a result of which production is also undertaken - The existence of machinery having been proved by the physical examination itself, it can not be said that no machinery is taken on lease for which lease rent is paid - The other corroborative evidence like lease agreement passing of money by banking channels, declaring lease income of recipients etc. are overwhelming evidence against the presumption that manufacturers do not have capacity to produce machineries - The existence of the machinery and its use has been established by assessee beyond any doubt. The wind electric generators were installed at the premises of TNEB which has been confirmed by the TNEB which is a Government Undertaking - The certificate submitted by the assessee from TNEB remains uncontroverted - Decided against Revenue. Depreciation on machinery transferred to another division - Held that:- The AO has failed to establish that no assets have been purchased or installed and in that circumstances, he can resort to disallow the depreciation - No efforts have been made to establish that the details submitted by the assessee were not correct - Decided against Revenue. Lease management fees - Held that:- The lease rent is being paid largely in respect of assets which have been in existence for the last 2-3 years - The assets were in existence as per the spot verification report dated 08.03.2001 of the chartered engineer appointed by the Income-tax Department - The lease rent paid is in respect of the assets purchased in the earlier years also deserve to be allowed in this year also - The existence of the machinery used and purchased from the five parties is established – Decided against Revenue. Payment to bogus parties - Held that:- The amount have been advanced through books of account to a particular party which have been received back during the year under consideration - The Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus in establishing the fact regarding the benami of the sources of the assessee - The Assessing Officer could have enquired regarding the person who has introduced the accounts from the account opening form and the necessary enquiries could have been made from the banks but nothing of such type has been done by the Assessing Officer - Merely stating that the cheques have been issued to the parties and received back during the year under consideration cannot be a basis for making such huge addition of Rs.20 crores – Once the advance made to a party and the same amount was received back then there cannot be any addition for escapement of income - Decided against Revenue. Foreign travelling expenses - Held that:- The assessee has not explained the details of the expenses satisfactorily to AO - Such disallowances are being made in past years - Decided in favour of Revenue. Advertisment expenses - Held that:- Advertisement given in a souvenir can be allowed only after the proof of advertisement in the souvenir has been filed by the appellant - The assessee has failed to furnish proof - The action of the AO in disallowing ad-hoc amount is not justified - Decided against Revenue. Staff welfare and sales promotion expenses - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has restricted the disallowance to 10% on account of staff welfare and sales promotion expenses - The assessee has not submitted complete details in respect of expenses - The disallowance of 10% was held to be justified - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 362
Validity of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 - Held that:- Both the issues were properly examined by the A.O. during the course of original assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act - The same were allowed by the A.O. after applying his mind - There was no tangible material in possession of A.O. to be treated as reasons for escapement of income - The assessment completed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act was reopened by the A.O. on the basis of same set of facts and same material which was available at the time of completing the assessment originally u/s 143(3) of the Act and the reopening was clearly based on a mere change of opinion which is not permissible - Decided against Revenue.
-
Customs
-
2014 (2) TMI 361
Waiver of pre-deposit - Penalty u/s 114 - Illegal export of Red Sander Logs - False declaration of goods - Consignment declared as Ceramic Sanitary Wares - Held that:- adjudicating authority has recorded at least in two places that Shri Vinaykant Gandhi did not cooperate with investigation and tried to escape with responsibility that he did not oversee the stuffing of the Ceramic Sanitary Wares in the containers and also refused to part with the proper details and where about of Shri Vishal Shah or other major persons involved in this case. We also find that adjudicating authority has specifically recorded that despite export of 40 to 45 containers Shri Gandhi was unaware and not met Shri Vishal Shah and other persons for the export of Ceramic Sanitary Wares. Prima-facie, we find that appellant Shri Vinaykant Gandhi is required to explain the non-applicability of provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 so as to come to a conclusion - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 360
Refund of duty paid on capital goods on conversion from 100% EOU scheme to EPCG scheme - computation of period of limiation - appellant claims that 6 months should be counted from the date of issue of no due certificate i.e. 6.10.2010 - Held that:- Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 has clear provisions to reckon the time from the date of payment of duty. This cannot be changed to some other date depending on the situation to be interpreted by each authority. Therefore, the decisions given by the lower authorities are in conformity with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 359
Classification of goods - Denial of the concessional rate of CVD under Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17th March, 2012 clearly clarified that the polished marble slabs and tiles are classifiable under C.T.H. No. 68022190 would eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said notification - applicant paid duty at the Bombay customs under protest. We find that the applicant made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire dues. Accordingly, pre-deposit of entire duty along with interest and penalty is waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeals - Stay granted.
-
Service Tax
-
2014 (2) TMI 394
Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification - Extended period of limiation - Change in the opinion of Audit Wing - whether service tax is chargeable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' even in respect of consideration received for transportation of goods in barges from a mothership to the jetty known as barging and transport of goods from one minor port to another - Held that:- appellant has a strong prima facie case with regard to the limitation in view of the fact that as late as in February 2008, the audit wing of the Department carried out a detailed examination of the appellant's activities including barging and directed the appellant to pay service taxes under the head 'Port Services'. Thus, the department itself was of the view that the activity of barging is not classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service'. However, all of a sudden for the first time in its show cause notice dated October, 2008, the above service was sought to be classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' - amount of pre-deposit reduced to that extent.
-
2014 (2) TMI 393
Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on construction services - Section 65(90a) and Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by Finance Act, 2007 - Held that:- The said issue was considered by the Full Bench of the Delhi High court in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd., v. Union of India [2011 (9) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - The provisions, namely, Section 65(105)(zzzz) and Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and as amended by the Finance Act, 2010, are intra vires the Constitution of India. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 392
Waiver of pre-deposit - CESTAT ordered to deposit major portion of demand - Levy of service tax on works contract - Held that:- The condition as to pre-deposit of the entire amount involved would certainly put heavy burden on the assessee. Whatever may be the justification in enacting such a provision, the remedy of appeal for a citizen cannot be made so dearer, nor can it be kept beyond the reach of an assessee. Indiscriminate denial of the power of waiver would result in a situation where an aggrieved party would be indirectly told "pay or perish". Just as levy of taxes is an attribute of sovereign power, adjudication of disputes is equally an important attribute of the same species. The only difference is while the former partakes the character of the right of the sovereign Government, the latter is in the form of its duty. Unless it is tempered with an element of reasonableness, the adjudicatory mechanism is prone to be just an eye-wash - stay order modified to allow stay to the extent 50% of demand.
-
2014 (2) TMI 391
Classification - Original Research Activities and Sponsored Research Activities - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services - Held that:- Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent relying upon the judgment in Central Power Research Institute [2006 (5) TMI 26 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] without discussing the facts of the present case and no finding has been given whether the respondent is a service provider or not in order to give benefit of the judgment in Central Power Research Institute. - order setaside and remanded back for reconsideration by the Tribunal afresh
-
2014 (2) TMI 388
Waiver of pre deposit - Penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 - Service tax liability not discharged - Port services - Transportation of coal cargo - Held that:- appellant, is the owner of the barges, which ply between mother ship and the shore and versa, carrying cargo. It is the also undisputed that the appellant had hired out these harges to M/s Shreeji Shipping and other firms for doing the activities - appellant had, in fact, charged M/s Shreeji Shipping and other firms an amount as a consideration, based upon the quantity of goods loaded/unloaded in their barges - appellant s barges are utilized for movement of cargo from ship to shore and vice versa and that the appellant is charging the consideration per tonnage of the goods hauled - appellant had not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of amount involved - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 387
Eligibility to avail cenvat credit - Service tax rendered for laying the pipelines for drawing of water from a source – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The services would be eligible for cenvat credit as the water which transported is used in manufacturing pharmaceutical goods - the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of service tax liability, the amount is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal – The detention memo is set aside and lower authorities are directed to withdraw the detention memo and handover the possession of machinery to appellant - the appellant has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalties - Rest of the amount to be waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 386
Duty demand on the land owners shares of construction - revenue was of the view that assesse had not furnished any evidence to establish any difference in specification / quality between the construction provided to the land owners and others - Held that:- Assesse failed to produce the evidence in support of their contention and the Commissioner was justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices – Commissioner was justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices and confirmed the demand accordingly – they were eligible for benefit of 67% abatement even the work’s contract benefit was denied – Assesse had not produced the cost of construction as required under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Waiver of pre deposit – assesse failed to make out a prima facie case – 75lakhs were ordered to be submitted – stay granted partly.
-
2014 (2) TMI 385
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services - Reverse charge mechanism - Held that:- FTC appears to be a part of the appellant company and hence the amount spent by the appellant for R&D activities of FTC cannot form taxable value of the service in question said to have been paid to the holding company up to 01.04.2007 - Apparently, the appellant was entitled to receive payments from the foreign company for the services which the appellant was liable to provide to them under the MOU. Prima facie, on such amount, no service tax can be levied from the appellant under Section 66A - prima facie case has been made out by the appellant and hence there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery till final disposal of the appeal as prayed for - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 384
Waiver of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax - Construction of residential complex service - Held that:- Factual submissions made by the assessee before the Commissioner were not supported by any documentary evidence though references were made to joint venture agreements, sale deeds and power of attorney. None of these documents was produced before the adjudicating authority and therefore that authority held against the assessee, rightly so, prima facie. We also wanted to see the relevant documents but none is forthcoming. It is in this scenario that we have stated at the outset that we have found no prima facie case for the appellant against the impugned demand - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 383
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Demand of service tax - Adjustment of excess service tax paid earlier - Held that:- Since there is no dispute that service tax has been paid, the claim for waiver can be accepted - restriction under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not apply to utilization of CENVAT credit availed on capital goods - during the relevant periods, if we take only credit taken on inputs/input services, the availment would not exceed 20% as required under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The excess availment has arisen only because the Department has taken into account the credit availed on capital goods also - appellant has made out a prima facie case in their favour - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 382
Denial of Cenvat credit – Credit on Business Auxiliary Service – Non-mention of registration number in the invoices – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- It cannot be gain said that Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 required the invoices of the service provider to contain certain essential particulars - If such essential particulars are found in the invoices, the CENVAT credit taken on the basis of such documents cannot be denied for want of other particulars - This is the mandate of Rule 9(2) of the CCR, 2004 – following Imagination Technologies India P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2011 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - so long as tax-paid nature of service is established and input service was utilized for providing output service, credit cannot be denied on the input service on the mere ground of non-mention of registration number in the invoices - waiver of pre-deposit granted recovery stayed till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
Central Excise
-
2014 (2) TMI 358
Use of common inputs plastic crates and Furnace Oil in the manufacture of dutiable aerated waters and exempted fruit pulp based drink ‘Slice’ - it was not possible for the appellant to ascertain the quantum of input relatable to clearance of exempted Slice – appellant reversed the entire credit availed – Whether the first respondent is right in recalling its order in the guise of exercising power under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, which provides for error apparent on the face of the record - Held that:- mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning - while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided - when the error pointed out is evidently of a disputed nature, the order of rectification being on an arguable issue, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue to that extent - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 357
Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether the factual findings recorded by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, that the assesse has not made out a prima facie case or undue hardship to waive the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be set aside by way of judicial review without demonstrating that such a finding was perverse - Held that:- assessee is a manufacturer of asbestos sheets. The assessee claimed the benefits of the Exemption Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1 March 2002 during the year 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of materials, arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that the assessee wrongly availed the benefits of the exemption notification. This resulted in issuing a show cause notice dated 7 April 2008 to the assesses proposing to levy an amount of Rs. 15,37,57,177/-towards Excise duty. Even though the assessee tried to justify their stand that they have correctly availed the benefits of the exemption notification, the Commissioner of Central Excise has, by giving certain reasons, suggestive of lack of bona fides, confirmed the demand. In case the appellant invokes the proviso to Section 35F to dispense with the requirement regarding pre-deposit, necessarily, the essential conditions should be satisfied. The Appellate Authority is expected to consider the relevant materials for the purpose of dispensation of pre-deposit. The Tribunal must consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and undue hardship. Undue hardship cannot be decided without making an attempt to consider the prima facie case. The Tribunal is expected to safeguard the interest of the Revenue also. While considering the applicability of the proviso to Section 35F of the Act in a given case, necessarily, the Tribunal should consider the interest of the Revenue also. In case the available materials are sufficient to arrive at a finding that the assessee has no prima facie case and the pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, necessarily, pre-deposit should be insisted. There is an element of discretion available to the Appellate Tribunal in such matters. The discretion should be exercised in accordance with the settled legal principles. The materials available on record should suggest a prima facie case in favour of the appellant besides undue hardship. When a finding is recorded with respect to prima facie case and undue hardship by CESTAT, in exercise of the power conferred under the proviso to Section 35F or the Act, such finding should be given due weight unless there are materials to show that the finding was perverse and no reasonable person would have arrived to such a finding on the basis of available materials. Each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. Single Judge was not correct in upsetting the findings recorded by the CESTAT with respect, to prima facie case and undue hardship. Accordingly, the order dated 14 February, 2002 in W.P. No. 2094 of 2012 is set aside. The order passed by CESTAT on 8 December, 2011 is restored - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 356
Waiver of a pre-deposit of duty - fabrication and erection of structural glazing - curtain wall/structural glazing - Imposition of interest and penalty - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants did not make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit - Held that:- assessee has been following judicial pronouncements to decide if the goods were liable to excise duty, the judgment in Man Structurals [2001 (4) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] could not have escaped its notice. Hence, assessee could not have required the exposition of law by a Larger Bench in Mahindra and Mahindra to understand that the goods were liable to excise duty. Since an application for rectification is pending before the Tribunal in its Bangalore Bench, we are not expressing a final view on the correctness of this line of reasoning. However, we may only observe at this stage that what the Tribunal clearly missed in its Bangalore decision was the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in Man Structurals found fault with the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had merely proceeded on the basis that structurals are not exigible to excise duty without considering in each case as a matter of fact whether new and identifiable goods which were marketable had come into existence. A prima facie case was made out by the Appellants for the grant of a complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal insofar as it declines to grant a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and direct that the Appellants shall be heard without requiring the Appellants to deposit the duty of Rs. 28,12,634 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 355
Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether the CESTAT committed error in interpreting proviso of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by offering to an assessee to deposit amount of interest and penalty within 30 days of its order to avail benefit of reduced penalty at 25% of duty, though CESTAT has not redetermined the quantum of duty - Held that:- Section 11AC of the Act provides for levy of penalty in case of short levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. The first proviso thereunder provides for exception to the main provision by stipulating that where the duty and the interest are paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid under Section 11AC of the Act shall be 25% of the duty so determined; and under second proviso, it is provided that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within a period of thirty days referred to in the first proviso - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs & Excise, Ahmedabad-I v. Akash Fashion Prints Private Limited [2009 (1) TMI 113 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 354
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Inputs written off in the Books of Accounts - Held that:- The credit can be denied to an assessee under the rule only on two grounds, firstly for having not used the inputs in the manufacture of goods and secondly for having removed the inputs as such. The credit cannot be denied to the assessee for having failed to utilize the inputs for a long time or for having written off the value of the inputs in the books, when those had not been removed by them from the factory as such. In the case in hand, none of the conditions laid down in rule 57-F for denying modvat credit to the appellants, stands satisfied. Therefore, for merely writing off value of the inputs in their books, they could not be denied the credits, when inputs were still lying in their factory premises - Following decision of CCE vs Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 175 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 353
Denial of input service credit - Outward courier charges and interior decoration - Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC - Excess availment of abatement as per the Notification 14/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008 - Eligibility of benefit under Rule 2 (l) of CCR read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- show-cause notice alleged against the appellant that they have availed the abatement wrongly. The word wrongly means that there was no deliberate Act by the appellant. The appellant is not contesting duty liability which has been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation - appellant is entitled to not to impose penalty in the absence of any fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut violation of the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order herself has incorporated that the services has been availed by the appellant in regard to their office at Wagle Estate where the factory of the appellant is located - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 352
Duty demand - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of photo album classifiable under heading No. 48.20 - Liability to pay duty on the PVC films being manufactured by them out of lay flat tubings - Imposition of penalties - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Confirmation of interest - Whether by adopting the process of edge cutting of the tubular form of PVC film, the appellant can be said to have undertaken the process of manufacture, in terms of provisions of provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- process of cutting or slitting of steel sheet in coil form to specific sizes not does not amount to manufacture, since no new, different and distinct articles emerged from the process - appellants are only edge cutting the PVC polytubings so as to make the in-leaves for the photo albums there can be no doubt about the fact that mere edge cutting of tubing so as to split it into one PVC film will not be covered by the definition appearing under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. PVC product remains PVC product only and it is only shape of such PVC film which is being changed from the tubular form to lay flat form. Otherwise there is no difference in the composition of the product which only remains PVC film. Process of edge cutting will not get covered by the definition of manufacture - starting product and the final product which fall under separate sub- headings would also not changethe scenario. Accordingly, we hold that appellants are not indulging into any act of manufacture of polyethylene sheets from polyethylene lay flat tubings and the confirmation of demand is not justified - there is no requisite to arrive at finding of limitation but for academic reason we hold that inasmuch as the demand stand raised by invocation of longer period and there being no evidence of suppression or malafide intention on the part of the assessee, invocation of longer period of limitation is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that demand is barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 351
Denial of refund claim - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- accumulation of credit at a given time during the quarter with the export of the goods is not relevant under the notification but it is only the amount of credit taken during the entire quarter and lying unutilized at the end of the quarter. The respondent in their cross objections have submitted that they were not able to utilize the amount of Cenvat credit as the balance in the Cenvat credit account at the end of the quarter was very much higher than the amount of refund sanctioned. In fact the appellant revenue has contested the findings of the adjudicating authority based only for the month of April and May, 2009 and have not considered June, 2009 which is against the provision of the notification - if credit is admissible in a particular month, it will be admissible in preceding and succeeding month also and exporter can claim refund after nine months, which will obviously not relate to export of goods in same month - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 350
Penalty u/s 11AC - Availment of 50% of CENVAT Credit of duty paid capital goods - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Commissioner dropped penalty - Held that:- in the show-cause notice in para (iii) it has been recorded that the noticee had intentionally taken wrong credit of duty on capital goods and utilized the same for payment of Central Excise duty. They did not reverse the said credit on their own accord but only after being pointing out by the departmental officers and hence they appear liable for penal action. On perusal of the said allegation in the show-cause notice, the credit has been taken intentionally and wrongly. Both are contrary terms. If the credit is taken intentionally then it cannot be taken wrongly but if it is mentioned wrongly then it cannot be intentionally. When the show-cause notice alleges two contrary terms against the respondent in that situation, benefit of doubts goes in favour of the respondent. As show-cause notice has not alleged the respondent clearly therefore I uphold the impugned order wherein penalty has been dropped against the respondent - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 349
Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of yarn - Maintenance of separate credit accounts in respect of Basic Excise Duty (BED) as also in respect of Additional Excise Duty (AED) leviable under "Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) is otherwise not opposed to the idea of maintenance of a common CENVAT credit account of BED as also AED. If the appellant would have maintained a common account, they would have debited the said common account for the entire refunded amount of ₹ 87.10 lakhs. It is not disputed that as per the provisions of Rule 3, Sub-rule 4, the CENVAT Credit availed by an assessee either in respect of BED or in respect of AED can be utilised for payment of any duty of excise on any final product. As such, it is clear that BED and AED could have been utilised for payment of each other - The said manner which stands pleaded, by the appellant is not against the provisions of Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and as such I find that in as much as BED and AED could have been utilised inter-challengeably, action of the lower authorities cannot be held to be justifiable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 348
Denial of Central Excise registration - recovery of dues from successor - Adjudicating Authority denied on the premise that the original owner of the business premises was having dues payable to the Central Excise department - Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the order of denial of registration - Recovery of government dues of Central Excise duty from subsequent buyer of the land is not required to be paid, in case the subsequent buyer has purchased the premises in an auction from third person, without any condition of fastening the liability of Central Excise duty - Following the decision in the case of Agarwal Metal Works [2010 (7) TMI 458 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 347
Denial of MODVAT Credit - Imposition of penalty - Inputs had been cleared twice in the same truck under two different invoices and the time of preparation/removal varied from 5 to 10 minutes during which period - Held that:- adjudicating authority could have verified from the jurisdictional Range office of supplier whether they have paid duty or not. The supplier have not been issued any show cause notice that they have not paid duty and this proves that duty has been paid on the said goods as received by the appellant. Further the appellant had made running payments to the supplier through Cheques/ Demand Drafts against the inputs received from said suppliers. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not been able to effectively rebut the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) except to show the invoices were made at a time gap of 5 to 15 minutes. As rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals), the goods involved in all these invoices can be transported in one truck load and there being no other evidence on record, the said fact cannot be adopted in prejudice to the assessee's case - Decided against Revenue.
-
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
-
2014 (2) TMI 390
Rate of tax - Tax on sale of loudspeaker - Whether the goods sold by the assessee is covered by Notification in G.O.P.No.187 dated 30.03.1990 and what would be the rate of tax on the sale of goods - Held that:- rate of tax payable by any dealer on the sale of electronic goods in the category falling under Entry No.11, I Schedule to the TNGST Act shall be liable to be taxed at the rate of 3%. Now the issue to be considered is as to whether the speakers sold by the assessee/dealer are electronic goods - assessee has sold speakers along with car radios, radios and Tvs and not speakers, which are used in mike sets - car stereos are admittedly electronic goods covered by Entry 55 and speakers are nothing but accessories which are separately covered by the very same entry i.e. Entry 55 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act - nobody can have a dispute that speakers attached to stereos are not accessories to it because without the speaker, stereo cannot be put to use at all; so much so, loud speakers which do not form accessory to any electronic item, only are covered by Entry 134 and loud speakers constituting accessory of electronic goods like stereo, car stereos and radios are covered by Entry 55. In Entry 11 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, it was enumerated as "Sound transmitting equipment including telephones and loud speakers and spare parts thereof". By virtue of Notification G.O.P.No.187 dated 30.03.1990, reducing the rate of tax to 3% on sale of electronic goods with effect from 17.03.1990, the appellant/assessee is entitled to the benefit of said Notification, since the sale of speakers of the assessee were along with car radios, radios and TV sets, which are admittedly electronic items - Following decision of State of Kerala, Rep. By Joint Commissioner Vs. M/s.Sigma Inc.Palarivattom [2010 (9) TMI 954 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 389
Amendment in the registration certificate - Import of machinery used in construction works - Rejection of application for issuance of Form 'C' - Held that:- The amendment in the registration certificate has been carried out. So far as issuance of Form 'C' for blank forms for import of machinery and goods for construction, the issuing officer should have passed the appropriate order in compliance with the order of the Court - The amendment in the registration certificate has been carried out. So far as issuance of Form 'C' for blank forms for import of machinery and goods for construction, the issuing officer should have passed the appropriate order in compliance with the order of the Court - writ petition is accordingly disposed of with directions that the petitioner's application for Form C pending with the issuing officer shall be decided afresh within three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him - Decided in favour of assessee.
|
