|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 309 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 198
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit for metallic wire netting of Phosphor Bronze and Dryer felt of woollen cloth.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57A regarding the classification of inputs.
3. Consideration of previous Tribunal and High Court decisions on similar matters.
4. Need for a larger Bench to resolve differing interpretations.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit for Metallic Wire Netting and Dryer Felt:
The common issue in all three appeals is whether Modvat Credit is admissible for metallic wire netting of Phosphor Bronze and Dryer felt of woollen cloth, declared as inputs used in the manufacture of paper. The appellants filed a declaration under Rule 57A, but the Department issued Show Cause Notices alleging these items are part of machinery, not consumables. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demands for reversal of Modvat Credit, holding these items are used in removing water from the pulp and drying as parts of machinery. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that these items are essential parts of the machine for processing and making paper and are excluded from Modvat benefit as per the explanation to Rule 57A.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57A:
The Tribunal noted the factual position regarding the usage of the two items:
- Wire net: Fitted and wound over rollers of the paper-making machine to form a uniform layer of pulp and drain water.
- Felt: Acts as a conveyor belt to carry the paper web through squeezing rollers, dryer, and calender.
Based on this, the Tribunal observed that these items are replaceable attachments to the paper-making machinery, used as parts for the functional operation of the machine, and thus excluded from Modvat Credit by virtue of the explanation to Rule 57A.
3. Consideration of Previous Decisions:
The Tribunal referenced several previous decisions:
- Poysha Ind. Co. Ltd. (1991): Lithographic plates and rubber blankets used as attachments to printing machines were ruled ineligible for Modvat Credit.
- Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills (1990): Similar items were disallowed Modvat benefit.
- Associated Cement Co. (1990): Items used for maintenance of machinery were held ineligible for Modvat Credit.
The Tribunal also considered the revised approach by the East Regional Bench in Straw Products (1992), which allowed Modvat benefit for similar items, and noted the necessity to address the differing interpretations.
4. Need for a Larger Bench:
The Tribunal identified several grey areas and differing interpretations that necessitate consideration by a larger Bench:
- Whether section notes and chapter notes for classification of excisable goods could be used for interpreting terms in Rule 57A.
- Whether parts of machines, not specifically excluded, could be considered inputs under Rule 57A.
- The applicability of the East Regional Bench's decision in Straw Products.
The Tribunal also noted the Calcutta High Court judgment in Singh Alloys & Steel Ltd. (1993), which considered the classification of ramming mass and its implications for Modvat Credit eligibility.
Conclusion:
In view of the differing interpretations and the need for a consistent approach, the Tribunal directed the Registry to refer the issues to a larger Bench for a decision. The issues to be considered include the interpretation of section notes and chapter notes, the inclusion of parts of machines as inputs, and the acceptance of the East Regional Bench's decision in Straw Products. Identical issues in the case of M/s. Divecha Glass Industries were also referred to the larger Bench.
-
1993 (9) TMI 197
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected a request for modification of a previous order denying MODVAT benefit to certain goods used in tire manufacturing. The Tribunal held that the goods in question were equipment excluded from the definition of "inputs" based on a Supreme Court decision. The request for modification was rejected. (Citation: 1993 (9) TMI 197 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1993 (9) TMI 196
Issues:
Rectification of Tribunal's order based on Supreme Court judgment on jute yarn consumption for jute twine manufacturing.
Analysis:
The case involved an application for rectification of the Tribunal's order regarding the liability of jute yarn consumed in the manufacture of jute twine to pay cess. The Department sought rectification based on a Supreme Court judgment in a similar matter. The Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal's order was passed without considering the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case. However, the Counsel for the Appellant opposed the rectification, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record as the Tribunal's decision was based on previous orders. The Supreme Court judgment was not published until after the Tribunal's order, and it was contended that the mistake, if any, was on the part of the parties for not bringing it to the Tribunal's notice.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court judgment was not available at the time of the Tribunal's order and emphasized that the ratio of a judgment becomes binding on others only when published and made available to the public. The Tribunal highlighted that the mistake of not bringing the Supreme Court order to its notice was not an error arising out of its order. The Respondent argued that the Supreme Court order cited by the Department was distinguishable and arguable, but even if applicable, it was the Department's responsibility to bring it to the Tribunal's attention.
The Tribunal observed that the order in question was a consent order, as the appellant had referred to a previous Tribunal order on the same issue, which the Departmental Representative had agreed covered the matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under Section 35C(2) and dismissed the application in open court.
-
1993 (9) TMI 195
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of claim for grant of regular license as Customs House Agent
- Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984
- Validity of impugned order as a non-speaking order
- Consideration of instructions issued by Principal Collector of Customs, Madras
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of a claim for the grant of a regular license to function as a Customs House Agent (CHA) in Bangalore under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appellant, a permanent CHA in Madras, applied for a similar license in Bangalore due to business expansion and was initially granted a temporary license. The impugned order rejecting the permanent license did not provide any reason and was deemed a non-speaking order. The appellant argued that there was no legal basis for denying the permanent license when he had been compliant with regulations and referred to instructions allowing CHAs to hold licenses in different stations. The issue centered on whether one could hold licenses in multiple places, as the impugned order did not cite any statutory provision supporting the denial of the permanent license.
The Member (J) considered the submissions and noted that the appellant had been operating successfully as a CHA in both Madras and Bangalore. The impugned order's rationale for denying the permanent license based on the prohibition of holding licenses in two different places lacked statutory backing. The judgment referenced Note No. 66/89-PA (SZO) issued by the Principal Collector, which highlighted common mistakes made by Collectorates in dealing with CHA applications. The note clarified that there was no requirement for a CHA to delete their name from one station to operate in another or for the proprietor to permanently reside in the second station. The judgment emphasized that as long as a qualified individual was available, there was no need to regulate the internal functioning of the CHA firm. Given the lack of irregularities in the appellant's operations and in line with the Principal Collector's instructions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 194
Issues:
Dispute over payment of freight charges in importation of goods.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the payment of freight charges in the importation of polypropylene goods from Japan. The appellants argued that the assessable value should consider the actual freight incurred by them, which was at a rate of U.S. $1450 per 20 ft. container. They contended that the CIF value should be calculated based on the actual freight paid, as per their contract with United Liner Agencies of India Pvt. Ltd. The Collector and other authorities had rejected this argument, leading to the appeals. The appellants sought to introduce additional evidence to support their claim, including correspondence and quotations from other shipping lines to demonstrate the discounted freight rates they received. They relied on Customs Valuation Rules and previous case law to support their contention that actual freight charges should be considered for determining the assessable value. The appellants also argued that bulk purchasers typically enjoy discounts, which should be reflected in the valuation of goods for customs purposes.
The respondent, however, opposed the appellants' claims, stating that the Bill of lading reflected normal freight charges and should be the basis for determining the assessable value. They questioned the authenticity and relevance of the additional evidence presented by the appellants, including quotations obtained after importation and correspondence with shipping lines. The respondent argued that the discounted freight rates were not proven or accounted for in the original documentation, and therefore, should not be considered for valuation purposes.
The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed that the actual cost of freight incurred by the importer should be taken into account for determining the assessable value. However, they found that the appellants failed to sufficiently prove that the freight charges shown in the Bill of lading were lower than the actual payment made. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate court should not entertain additional evidence that could have been presented before the lower authorities without sufficient cause. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' request for additional evidence could not be granted at that stage. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to consider the freight charges as per the Bill of lading for valuation purposes, while reducing the redemption fine imposed in one of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the impugned orders with a modification to the redemption fine.
-
1993 (9) TMI 193
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved the eligibility of Phosphoric Acid for MODVAT benefit in sugar production. The Tribunal held that Phosphoric Acid is an essential input used in sugar manufacturing, as it is necessary for obtaining the required clarity in cane juice to produce quality sugar. The Reference Application questioning this decision was dismissed as Phosphoric Acid is considered an input in the manufacture of sugar.
-
1993 (9) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves determining whether the preparation of specific pesticidal chemicals through dilution with inert carriers and agents amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salts Act, 1944.
Comprehensive Details:
The appeal questioned whether the dilution process of basic pesticidal chemicals with carriers and agents to create new products suitable for use constitutes manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. The appellant argued that this process results in the emergence of distinct products with different properties, akin to the manufacture of soft drinks from concentrates. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the dilution did not create new articles with distinctive characteristics, as the products were marketed under the same names as the basic chemicals used.
The Tribunal examined the submissions and records to determine if the dilution process transformed the basic pesticidal chemicals into new products with unique identities. Citing precedents, the Tribunal noted that a mere change in form does not necessarily indicate the manufacture of a new article. It emphasized that for excise duty to apply, the processing must lead to the creation of a new and distinct commodity commercially recognized as such. In this case, the processing by the respondents did not result in the emergence of products with distinctive names, characters, or uses, as they retained the names of the basic chemicals even after dilution.
Based on the analysis and legal principles from previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the processes carried out by the respondents did not amount to "manufacture" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. Since the dilution did not lead to the creation of new products with unique identities, the appeal was rejected.
-
1993 (9) TMI 191
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta heard a case where M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. was directed to make cash payment for Modvat credit availed for inputs like Ramming Mass, despite already reversing the amount in their RG 23A Account. The Tribunal found the demand for cash payment unjustified and stayed the operation of the impugned orders until the appeal is disposed of. The appeal is scheduled for hearing on 21-1-1994.
-
1993 (9) TMI 190
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty to the petitioners. The demand for duty was not justified as the petitioners were users, not manufacturers, of the goods in question. The appeal is scheduled for further hearing on 17-12-1993.
-
1993 (9) TMI 189
Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on undue enrichment and passing of import duty burden to consumers.
Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals concerning refund claims for specific amounts. The Assistant Commissioner (A.C.) rejected the claims citing lack of evidence on passing the excess duty to consumers, leading to undue enrichment. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the A.C.'s decision. The appellant imported acrylic fiber, and customs charged duty based on the bond expiry date instead of the payment date. The duty was paid under protest and used as raw material in manufacturing acrylic yarn.
The appellant argued that customs officers cannot reject refund claims based on unjust enrichment. They referenced various judgments to support their case, emphasizing that duty was paid under coercion. They contended that no evidence proved passing the duty burden to customers, as the final product was duty-exempt. The Department failed to demonstrate duty passing to customers or any drawback claim. The appellant requested setting aside the A.C. and Collector (Appeals) orders.
During the hearing, the consultant referred to the Apex Court's judgment on unjust enrichment and its retrospective application. The respondent conceded that the appellant's case aligned with a Bombay High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted the Bombay High Court's explanation in a similar case, emphasizing that since the appellant used the imported fiber for manufacturing, they did not pass the duty burden to buyers. The scheme requires direct transfer of duty burden upon sale of imported goods, which did not occur in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Bombay High Court's findings and allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting that the duty burden was not passed to buyers due to internal use in manufacturing, thus not falling under the scheme's requirements for refund denial based on undue enrichment.
-
1993 (9) TMI 188
The Special Bench directed the appeals to determine the manufacturer under Section 2(f). The Regional Bench cannot decide on the availability of exemption notification. Appeals sent back to Special Bench for further consideration. The benefit of exemption notification denied to M/s. Raj Manufacturing Co. sought to be extended. Appeals to be placed before the President for appropriate direction.
-
1993 (9) TMI 187
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assembly of a small number of Desert Coolers out of duty-paid exhaust fans and water pumps, when meant for their own use and not for sale, amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the demand issued to the appellants was time-barred.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assembly and Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
The appellants, a State Government undertaking engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity, were served with a show cause notice for duty and penalty on 29 Desert Coolers assembled in their workshop. The appellants contended that the assembly of these coolers out of duty-paid exhaust fans and water pumps, meant exclusively for their own use and not for sale, did not constitute "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They cited the Tribunal's decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay v. CCE Bombay, which held that assembling parts for one's own use does not make the product excisable.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants were not in the business of manufacturing and selling Desert Coolers. The coolers were fabricated out of scrap materials and were not offered or advertised for sale. Referring to the precedent in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay v. CCE, Bombay, the Tribunal concluded that the coolers assembled for their own use were not excisable. The Tribunal emphasized that the assembly for personal use does not meet the criteria of "manufacture" as defined in the Act.
2. Time-Barred Demand
The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as it was issued beyond the six-month period. They highlighted that Central Excise officers regularly visited their workshop and were aware of the assembly activities, which were not deemed as manufacturing. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Padmini Products v. Collector of Customs and Excise, which held that the extended period for raising a demand requires evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Mere failure or negligence does not justify the extended period.
The Tribunal found that the appellants acted under a bona fide belief that the assembly of coolers for their own use was not excisable. The demand was raised only after an audit objection, and there was no evidence of fraud or willful misstatement. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand issued on 27-4-1984 for the period 1-3-1980 to 31-3-1983 was time-barred.
Conclusion
Both issues were resolved in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the assembly of coolers for personal use did not constitute manufacture and that the demand was time-barred.
-
1993 (9) TMI 186
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assembly of a small number of Desert Coolers out of duty-paid exhaust fans and water pumps bought from the market, when meant for their own use and not for sale, amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the demand issued to the appellants was time-barred.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Assembly Constituting Manufacture:
The appellants, a State Government undertaking engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity, assembled 29 Desert Coolers in their workshop from duty-paid exhaust fans and water pumps purchased from the market, and scrap iron/tin sheets available in their workshop. These coolers were meant for use in their own offices and not for sale. The primary contention was whether this assembly constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
The Tribunal referred to the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay v. CCE, Bombay, where it was held that if water coolers were erected by a person by his own efforts and for his own use through assembly of different parts, the product would not be excisable. The Tribunal observed that the appellants were not in the business of manufacturing and selling Desert Coolers, and the coolers were not offered or advertised for sale as ready-assembled units. The Tribunal concluded that the assembly of coolers for their own use did not amount to manufacture, as the coolers were neither ready-assembled units nor sold or offered for sale. Therefore, the coolers assembled by the appellants were not excisable.
2. Time-Barred Demand:
The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as it was issued beyond the period of 6 months. They contended that the Central Excise officers regularly visited their workshops and were aware of the assembly of coolers for their own use. The demand was raised only at the instance of an objection raised by the Audit Party.
The Tribunal referred to the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Customs and Excise, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the extended period of 5 years for raising a demand for the recovery of short levy would not be applicable in cases of mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer where there was scope for doubt. The Tribunal found that the appellants acted under the bona fide belief that the assembly of coolers for their own use was not excisable. There was no evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Consequently, the demand issued on 27-4-1984 for the recovery of the alleged short levy during the period 1-3-1980 to 31-3-1983 was time-barred.
Conclusion:
Both issues were resolved in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the assembly of coolers did not constitute manufacture and the demand was time-barred.
-
1993 (9) TMI 185
Issues:
- Appeal against the order of confiscation of imported cloves for not conforming to purity standards under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
- Importer's plea for industrial use of the cloves and release from confiscation.
- Consideration of alternative uses for the goods and modification of the order of confiscation.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against the Collector of Customs' order upholding the confiscation of imported cloves due to non-conformity with purity standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellants argued that the goods were imported from a reputed supplier with a Phytosanitary Certificate, and while some extraneous matter was found, it did not render the cloves harmful for consumption. They proposed using the cloves for industrial purposes, citing a ready customer for clove oil extraction. The appellants highlighted that the license covered the import of the cloves, and if used for industrial purposes, there should be no objection to their importation.
2. The Senior Advocate for the appellants referenced a High Court judgment regarding the release of imported Pigeon Peas not fit for human consumption, which were later fumigated and sorted for industrial use. The appellants emphasized that the cloves could be used for industrial extraction of oil and requested permission for this purpose to prevent wastage of foreign exchange. They offered to provide evidence of industrial use and comply with any conditions set by the authorities. The appellants were not implicated in any intentional wrongdoing and had a history of normal business practices.
3. The Department did not present a specific argument regarding the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to goods intended for industrial use. The Tribunal considered the license's coverage of the importation and the failed purity tests, emphasizing the Act's objective of safeguarding public health. While the cloves were unsuitable for human consumption, the Tribunal acknowledged their potential alternative industrial use. It was proposed that the goods could be released for industrial purposes under certain conditions, including the execution of an end-use bond and supervision during processing.
4. The Tribunal noted that the extraneous matter in the cloves exceeded the prescribed limit but the oil content shortfall was minor. While the goods could not be allowed for public consumption in their current state, the authorities could have explored physical processes to remove extraneous matter before confiscation. However, given the potential for industrial use and lack of malintent by the importers, the Tribunal modified the order of confiscation. The appellants were allowed to use the cloves for industrial extraction of oil under specified conditions, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
1993 (9) TMI 184
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 18,21,085 towards duty to hear their appeal on merits. The advocate cited case laws supporting their position that the use of "Wockhardt" on labels does not make it a branded medicine. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments and granted a stay on the duty amount pending compliance with the bond requirement.
-
1993 (9) TMI 183
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat Credit and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.
2. Applicability of extended period for recovery and penalty under Rule 173Q.
3. Assessment of whether the appellants wilfully availed excess Modvat Credit.
4. Applicability of the time limit for demand of duty.
5. Imposition and justification of penalty under Rule 173Q.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the disallowance of Modvat Credit of Rs. 91,428.29 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 173Q by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta II. The appellants, M/s Fuji Reprographics Industries, claimed that they had not suppressed any information and had acted bona fide. The issue revolved around whether the extended period of 5 years applied for recovery and penalty under Rule 173Q. The Additional Collector found that the appellants had availed Modvat Credit in excess of the permissible amount over a prolonged period, which constituted a contravention of rules and notification. The demand for duty and penalty was upheld based on the wilful excess credit availed by the appellants.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that although the appellants had indeed taken more Modvat Credit than entitled, there was no evidence of wilful suppression. The appellants had provided full details in their statements and declarations, and the Assistant Collector had granted permission based on the information provided. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that the excess credit was wilfully availed, stating that the mistake was not deliberate but an error or misconstruction. Therefore, the normal period of six months applied for the demand of duty, and the appeal succeeded on the ground of limitation.
Regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was justified as the appellants had wrongly taken credit of duty in excess of the permissible amount. The penalty provision did not require proof of knowledge or belief for wrong taking of credit. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty, considering it a civil obligation to remedy the tax delinquency. The quantum of penalty was deemed appropriate given the duty involved, and thus, the imposition of penalty was sustained. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed concerning the demand of duty but dismissed regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q.
-
1993 (9) TMI 182
The appeal by M/s. Chloride Industries Ltd. was against the disallowance of Modvat Credit on defective separators. The Collector held that defective components cannot be considered waste or by-product. The Tribunal set aside the order, stating waste can arise at any manufacturing stage. The case was to be disposed of by the Assistant Collector according to Rules 57D and 57F(2) and (4).
-
1993 (9) TMI 181
Issues:
Classification of products under specific sub-heading and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E.
Detailed Analysis:
The appellant submitted classification lists for their products of Iron and Steel, with one product being disputed under "Other cast articles of Iron & Steel - of Iron (un-machined)." The Assistant Collector approved the lists except for the disputed product, resorting to further verification under Rule 98. The appellant claimed classification under sub-heading No. 7325.10 with exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. However, the Asstt. Collector approved the product under different chapters and denied exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., stating it should be covered under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. The appellant was directed to pay duty accordingly.
The appellants filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original, arguing for classification under sub-heading No. 7325.10 and exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. They cited previous decisions by CEGAT and Collector (Appeals) supporting their classification. The department had long been aware of the issue, with previous decisions accepted by both parties. The appellant contended that iron castings meeting specific criteria should be eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., as clarified by a Circular of the Board.
During the hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated their grounds for appeal, emphasizing the consistent manufacturing process for the products. Previous orders and judgments were referenced to support the classification of unmachined iron castings. The appellant argued that the Asstt. Collector erred in the classification, as the manufacturing processes remained unchanged over the years.
The Judge considered the appellant's request for waiving pre-deposit due to a prima facie case. The classification issue was revisited, with the Judge noting that the matter had been settled in a previous order, and there was no apparent change in the manufacturing process. The Judge disagreed with the Asstt. Collector's reasoning that the products were not unmachined castings due to surface treatment processes, as clarified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs guidelines aligning with the Tariff Act.
The Asstt. Collector also questioned the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., but the Judge found that the appellants fulfilled the conditions for this exemption. Consequently, the Judge set aside the Asstt. Collector's order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E.
-
1993 (9) TMI 180
The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi filed an appeal challenging an order. The issue was whether the date of payment or finalisation of returns should be considered for refund limitations. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Samrat International case and allowed the appeal as the refund claim was filed within the specified period.
-
1993 (9) TMI 179
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the delay in issuing tax deduction certificates.
3. Consideration of ignorance of law as a reasonable cause.
4. Computation of delay and the number of defaults.
5. The proportionality of the penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appeal was directed against the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) for the assessment year 1989-90. The appellant, a Semi-Government Undertaking Board, failed to issue tax deduction certificates to 162 employees within the prescribed time, resulting in a delay of 813 days. The Dy. CIT imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,31,70,600 for this failure.
2. Justification of the delay in issuing tax deduction certificates:
The appellant argued that they were unaware of the requirement to issue unified certificates in the new Form No. 16 due to lack of information and resources in their small town. The appellant's office issued certificates in the old forms, which had been accepted in previous years. The delay was attributed to the absence of an Income-tax Office or tax consultants in Phaltan, and the administrative challenges faced by the limited staff.
3. Consideration of ignorance of law as a reasonable cause:
The tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 stated that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. The appellant's plea of ignorance was considered reasonable given the circumstances, including the lack of tax consultation facilities and the acceptance of old forms in previous years.
4. Computation of delay and the number of defaults:
The Dy. CIT computed the delay by considering each employee separately, resulting in 162 separate violations. The tribunal found this approach incorrect, stating that the appellant committed only one default by not issuing the TDS certificates in the new form. The computation of delay was thus deemed erroneous.
5. The proportionality of the penalty imposed:
The tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and should consider the intention behind the default. The appellant's bona fide belief that the old forms were acceptable, coupled with the timely deposit of tax deducted at source, indicated a lack of contumacious or dishonest conduct. The imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 1,31,70,600 against a total tax deduction of Rs. 1,61,605 was deemed disproportionate and unwarranted.
Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause from issuing the new Form 16 certificates and that the levy of penalty was not justified. The order of the revenue imposing the penalty was cancelled, and the appeal was allowed. The cross-objection by the revenue to support the CIT(A)'s decision was dismissed as it did not survive following the cancellation of the impugned order.
............
|
9911796707
