|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 668 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 583
Yeast from molasses - refund of the trade tax which the opposite parties have realised from the petitioner through Sugar Mills on the purchase of molasses - whether the State Government is already charging tax from the petitioner under the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, which is a Special enactment for molasses only and as such under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 no tax can be realised from the petitioner as it will amount to double taxation on the sale of same product i.e. molasses by the State Government under two different enactments?
Held that:- Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly conceded that administrative charges collected by the Sugar Mills on the purchase of the molasses by the petitioner is a tax. He has also conceded that the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, being a Special enactment will override the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which is a general Act providing for collection of taxes on sale and purchase of goods.
The petitioner is entitled for the refund of the trade tax which was illegally realised and collected by the opposite parties on the purchase of the molasses through Sugar Mills of the State of U.P. subsequent to 10.3.2003.
-
2008 (10) TMI 582
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under section 148.
2. Additions made by the Assessing Officer not mentioned in the notice under section 148.
3. Service of notice under section 148 to the correct address.
4. Participation of the assessee in the reassessment proceedings.
5. Applicability of section 292B of the Income-tax Act.
6. Legal precedents regarding omission or defect in serving notice.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 was never served. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) accepted this contention and declared the notice void ab initio. However, the Tribunal held that the first notice issued under section 148 was indeed served on the assessee, as evidenced by the assessee's participation in the reassessment proceedings through his authorized representative. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was valid.
2. Additions Made by the Assessing Officer Not Mentioned in the Notice under Section 148:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer should have limited the additions to the difference in gross receipts (Rs. 10,272) mentioned in the notice under section 148. The CIT(A) agreed and deleted the additional items. However, the Tribunal clarified that under section 147, once the assessment is reopened, the Assessing Officer can assess any income that comes to his notice during the reassessment proceedings, not just the items initially mentioned. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the additional items added by the Assessing Officer.
3. Service of Notice under Section 148 to the Correct Address:
The assessee claimed the notice was sent to an old address despite informing the Assessing Officer of the new address. The CIT(A) found that the notice was indeed sent to the old address and declared the proceedings void. The Tribunal, however, noted that subsequent notices were served at the new address and the assessee had responded to these notices, indicating that the initial notice was effectively served.
4. Participation of the Assessee in the Reassessment Proceedings:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee, through his authorized representative, participated in the reassessment proceedings and provided explanations. This participation indicated acknowledgment of the notice under section 148, thereby validating the reassessment process.
5. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income-tax Act:
The Revenue argued that any procedural defect in serving the notice could be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this argument but implicitly supported the notion by validating the reassessment despite the alleged procedural defects.
6. Legal Precedents Regarding Omission or Defect in Serving Notice:
The Revenue cited Supreme Court decisions stating that defects in serving notice render the assessment order irregular, not void. The Tribunal aligned with this view, emphasizing that the reassessment remains valid as the assessee responded and participated in the proceedings, thus acknowledging the notice.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was valid, the notice under section 148 was effectively served, and the additional items identified during the reassessment were correctly added. The order of the CIT(A) was vacated, and the reassessment order by the Assessing Officer was restored. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 581
The appellant sought recall of Final Order/Stay Order No. 140/2008 and 95/2008 due to non-appearance after multiple notices. The appeal was requested to be disposed on merits and is accepted for listing. RoA is allowed, and the stay application is set for hearing on 3rd December, 2008.
-
2008 (10) TMI 580
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties u/s 73(1), 78, and 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The judgment pertains to applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties u/s 73(1), 78, and 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The service tax amounts confirmed against the appellants were Rs. 2,20,428/-, Rs. 23,66,671/-, and Rs. 5,04,845/- for different entities. The service provided by the appellants involved verification of information for credit cards, home loans, and auto loans, outsourced by banks, categorized as business auxiliary services attracting service tax liability from 1-7-2003.
The Tribunal considered the appellants' case and referred to a previous order in S.R. Kalyanakrishnan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 255 (Tri.-Bang.), where similar services were classified as business support services taxable from 1-5-2006 onwards. As the period in question in the present appeal was before 1-5-2006, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the amounts pending the appeals.
-
2008 (10) TMI 579
Issues:
1. Demand of service tax, interest, and penalties by lower authorities
2. Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003
3. Assessment of evidence regarding the value of goods and materials used in taxable service
4. Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties by lower authorities against the appellants for a specific period. The lower authorities imposed these financial obligations without granting the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 to the assessee in determining the taxable value. The assessee, through their consultant, argued that they are entitled to the benefit of this notification as they possess documentary proof of the value of goods and materials used in providing the taxable service of maintenance and repair. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the SDR, contended that the proof provided by the assessee is insufficient as their invoices to customers did not separately indicate the value of goods and materials. The judgment recognizes the need to assess and appreciate the evidence presented by the assessee, indicating that this evaluation can be conducted during the final hearing of the appeal.
2. The judgment specifically highlights the importance of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 in determining the taxable value for the service provided by the appellants. It acknowledges the conflicting positions of the assessee and the Revenue regarding the availability and sufficiency of documentary proof related to the value of goods and materials used in the taxable service. The judge emphasizes the need for a thorough assessment of this evidence to make an informed decision, suggesting that this assessment can be deferred until the final hearing of the appeal.
3. The judgment directs the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as a provisional measure. This pre-deposit is based on the estimate provided by the consultant, indicating that it would cover the outstanding service tax amount if the benefit of the notification is eventually granted to the appellants. The appellants are given a deadline of four weeks to make this pre-deposit and are required to report compliance by a specified date. In case of timely compliance, the judgment offers a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and a stay of recovery concerning penalties, interest on tax, and the remaining tax amount, providing a temporary relief to the appellants pending the final resolution of the appeal.
-
2008 (10) TMI 578
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ordered the appellant, a hotel industry, to pre-deposit Service Tax of Rs. 1,26,794/- and penalties under different sections. The dispute was regarding the deduction claimed by the appellants for tea and snacks supplied in the Hall rented out for events. The Tribunal considered that tea with snacks cannot be considered a 'meal' and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery pending appeal.
-
2008 (10) TMI 577
Issues:
- Demand of Service Tax and education cess
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit and education cess
- Imposition of mandatory penalty
- Penalty under Section 76 of the Act
Analysis:
Demand of Service Tax and education cess:
The appellants were required to pre-deposit the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,01,429/- along with education cess of Rs. 3,161/-. The issue revolved around whether the service provided by the appellants, related to storage and warehousing, was taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. The department contested that the duty paid on certain items, for constructing storage facilities, was not eligible for credit. However, the learned Advocate argued that the duty paid items were essential for the storage tank fabrication, crucial for the service. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading to penalties being imposed. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case, granting a waiver on the pre-deposit until the appeal's final decision, citing strong merits and a plea of time-bar.
Disallowance of Cenvat credit and education cess:
Apart from the Service Tax demand, the appellants were also facing disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,31,416/- along with education cess of Rs. 12,638/-. The dispute centered around the eligibility of duty paid items as capital goods or inputs for the appellants' service operations. The Advocate argued for the credit's validity, emphasizing the necessity of the items for the storage and warehousing service. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, acknowledged the appellant's strong case on merits and granted a full waiver on the pre-deposit, ensuring no recovery proceedings until the appeal's final decision.
Imposition of mandatory penalty and Section 76 penalty:
In addition to the tax demands and credit disallowance, the appellants were also facing penalties. A mandatory penalty of Rs. 1,04,590/- was imposed along with a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the Act. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to order a full waiver on the pre-deposit of the penalty amounts until the appeal's final resolution. This decision was based on the perceived strong merits of the appellant's case and the plea of time-bar presented by the Advocate.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case focused on granting a waiver on the pre-deposit amounts related to Service Tax demand, Cenvat credit disallowance, and penalties, considering the strong merits of the appellant's case and the plea of time-bar, ensuring no recovery proceedings until the appeal's final decision.
-
2008 (10) TMI 576
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ordered the appellant to pre-deposit Service Tax of Rs. 2,09,030/- and Education Cess of Rs. 4,181/- along with penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The appellants were engaged in Civil Construction activities and were categorized under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services'. They were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- within three months, with the balance of duty and penalty waived until the appeal's disposal. Compliance was to be reported by January 19, 2009.
-
2008 (10) TMI 575
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pre-deposit Rs. 89,51,189/- for alleged evasion of Service Tax under the heading of 'Club or Association'.
2. Whether the service rendered to the appellant's own members falls under the category of 'Club or Association' for Service Tax liability.
3. Whether the judgments cited by the appellant in support of their case are distinguishable from the present situation.
4. Whether the demands are time-barred and if the appellant's pre-deposit of Rs. 25,77,217/- is sufficient.
Analysis:
1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a substantial amount in terms of the Order-in-Original due to alleged evasion of Service Tax under the category of 'Club or Association'. The appellant, a club, had not paid the Service Tax for services provided to its members, leading to the confirmation of the Service Tax after due adjudication.
2. The appellant contested the levy of Service Tax, arguing that services rendered to their own members should not be covered under 'Club or Association'. Citing judgments, the appellant claimed that when services are provided to their own members within their premises, they are not liable for Service Tax. The appellant had already deposited a portion of the amount and requested to consider it as sufficient, stating that they were a non-commercial association.
3. The judgments cited by the appellant were distinguished by the JCDR, emphasizing that the category in those cases was 'Mandap Keeper', unlike the present case under 'Club or Association'. The JCDR argued that the amount deposited was insufficient and further pre-deposit was necessary.
4. The Tribunal observed the contentious nature of the issue and noted the distinction between the cited judgments related to 'Mandap Keeper' services and the current case under 'Club or Association'. While acknowledging the possibility of the appellant falling under the 'Club or Association' category, the Tribunal agreed to consider the plea regarding time-barred demands. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's partial deposit for contesting the case, waived the balance amounts, and stayed the recovery. The appeal was scheduled for an earlier hearing due to high revenue implications, with no recovery during the appeal's pendency and even after 180 days.
-
2008 (10) TMI 574
The Revenue filed an appeal seeking condonation of an 8-day delay, which the Counsel argued was 13 days. The Commissioner approved the delay due to late receipt of records. The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay based on a Supreme Court ruling and the marginal delay with sufficient explanation from the Revenue. The appeal was granted to proceed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 573
Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit under Section 75 of the Finance Act
2. Penalty under Sections 78, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax by a State Govt. undertaking providing transport services
3. Financial hardship faced by the appellants and the amount to be pre-deposited
Analysis:
1. The judgment in the case required the appellant, a State Govt. undertaking providing transport services, to pre-deposit Rs. 9.38 crores under Section 75 of the Finance Act. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 5,61,58,221/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act and separate penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act were imposed in accordance with the impugned order.
2. The appellant was engaged in providing various transport services in Andhra Pradesh, including "Mandap keeper" services and chartered/contract carriage/tour services. The services provided included supplying buses to private parties for various purposes like pilgrimages, marriages, leisure travel, and excursions. Despite operating on the basis of casual, inter-state casual, and chartered contracts, the appellant did not obtain contract carriage permits for certain services provided to industries, institutions, and public sector undertakings. As a result, the department held that the appellant had not paid service tax under the category of "tour operator services" and confirmed the demand after due consideration.
3. The appellant, facing financial hardship and significant losses, requested to deposit a reduced amount due to financial constraints. The Stay Order from a previous case directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 50 lakhs against a total demand exceeding Rs. 3.97 crores. Considering the financial difficulties faced by the appellant, the Tribunal directed them to pre-deposit Rs. 75 lakhs within three months from the date of the order. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. However, upon making the required deposit, the balance of demands would be waived, and recovery stayed, with the stay order remaining in force even after 180 days from the deposit date.
-
2008 (10) TMI 572
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on services received prior to registration as an input service distributor.
Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether an applicant company, having a manufacturing unit and availing Cenvat credit on inputs/input services, could claim credit for services received prior to registration as an input service distributor. The applicant company's head office in Delhi obtained registration after receiving services like security agencies, telephones, chartered accountant services, and C&F agents. The disputed amount pertained to the period before the registration. The advocate for the applicant argued that registration was a mere formality and that credit should be available immediately post-registration, without any financial hardship being pleaded.
The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise submitted that registration was a prerequisite for claiming credit as an input service distributor. Without registration, the applicant could not be eligible for credit, making the distribution of credit for the earlier period untenable. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal was not inclined to agree that credit could be available before the registration date for the input service distributor. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified sum within a stipulated timeframe, with the pre-deposit of the balance amount of service tax and penalty being waived and recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of registration as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit as an input service distributor. The ruling clarified that credit for services received before registration was not permissible, emphasizing the significance of compliance with registration requirements in availing such credits.
-
2008 (10) TMI 571
Issues Involved:
1. Non-registration under the category of Port Service.
2. Non-payment of service tax under Port Service.
3. Classification of services provided by the appellant.
4. Rejection of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering modification applications.
5. Definition and authorization under Port Services.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Non-registration under the category of Port Service:
The appellant did not obtain registration under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, under the category of Port Service. They were registered under the category of Cargo Handling Service and paid service tax accordingly. The investigation revealed that the services provided by the appellant in the port area should fall under Port Services as defined under Section 65(82) of the Act.
2. Non-payment of service tax under Port Service:
The appellant did not pay service tax under Port Service but paid under Cargo Handling Service. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhavnagar, confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,22,286/- and Rs. 5,97,352/- along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 75A, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.
3. Classification of services provided by the appellant:
The services provided by the appellant included Stevedoring, barge service, crane service, storage services, etc. The adjudicating authority held that these services fall under Port Services. However, the appellant contended that their services fall under Cargo Handling Services and Steamer Agent, and they were not authorized to operate the entire port.
4. Rejection of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering modification applications:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without considering the modification applications and without a proper hearing. The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that this conduct was not in accordance with judicial precedent and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
5. Definition and authorization under Port Services:
The definition of Port Services under Section 65(82) of the Act includes any service rendered by a port or a person authorized by the port. The appellant argued that they were not authorized to operate the entire port and thus their services should not fall under Port Services. The CESTAT judgments in Homa Engineering Works and Velji P. & Sons clarified that licenses issued by port authorities do not constitute authorization to provide port services.
Conclusion:
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant's services do not fall under Port Services as they were not authorized to operate the entire port. The demand for service tax under Port Services was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
-
2008 (10) TMI 570
The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal with the delay condoned. (Citation: 2008 (10) TMI 570 - SC)
-
2008 (10) TMI 569
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to mismatch in goods description in Bill of Entry and Advance Licence.
2. Validity of subsequent amendment in the licence by DGFT after confiscation and penalty imposition.
3. Interpretation of para 2.26 of Chapter 2 of Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures.
4. Application of the decision in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. case to the present scenario.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to a discrepancy in the description of goods in the Bill of Entry and the Advance Licence. The Adjudicating Authority allowed redemption of goods on payment of fines and penalties, subject to amending the licence to cover the goods.
2. The Revenue contended that subsequent amendment in the licence by DGFT post-confiscation cannot absolve the importer of the offense committed. They argued that the goods were imported without a valid advance licence, and the amended licence was not in existence during the relevant periods.
3. The respondents, relying on the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, highlighted para 2.26 of Chapter 2 of Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures. They emphasized that goods already imported but not cleared from customs can be cleared against an Authorization issued subsequently. The amended licence allowed duty-free clearance of the goods meant for export.
4. The Tribunal referred to the Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. case, where it was held that once a licence is issued by the Competent Authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot override the import. In the present case, the goods were cleared under the amended licence issued by the competent authority, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as confiscation and penalty imposition were deemed unsustainable based on the circumstances.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the key issues raised, arguments presented by both sides, relevant legal provisions, and the application of precedent to the current case, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
-
2008 (10) TMI 568
Issues:
Refund claims based on excess duty paid on imported goods; Correlation between interest charges and assessable value; Change of name of claimants affecting refund claims; Relevance of correspondence between merged companies and suppliers; Unjust enrichment aspect not examined by lower authorities.
Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd., Mysore filing refund claims for excess duty paid on imported brass-coated steel tyre cord. The claims were based on the argument that interest charges for deferred payment were not part of the assessable value. However, the original authority rejected the claims as the evidence provided did not correlate with the import documents, leading to dismissal of the appeal as well.
Upon appeal, it was noted that the claimants had undergone a name change due to a merger with M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd., Delhi, later renamed M/s. J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. Correspondence between the merged company and suppliers was presented to show the interest charges were for deferred payment. Despite this, both lower authorities rejected the claims without considering the aspect of unjust enrichment.
The Appellate Tribunal found the case merited a remand to the original authority for a fresh decision on the refund claims. The party was directed to provide evidence establishing the successorship between the companies, the purpose of interest charges, and the absence of passing on the duty to others. The original authority was instructed to issue a detailed order after examining the evidence and granting the party a fair hearing.
To facilitate the above, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal for remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation of the refund claims in light of the provided evidence and legal requirements.
-
2008 (10) TMI 567
Issues:
Appeal against enhancement of valuation, confiscation, and imposition of penalty based on Customs Act, 1962 and EXIM Policy.
Analysis:
The case involved two appeals concerning the enhancement of valuation, confiscation, and penalty imposed on imported Computer Monitors and P-III systems. The Additional Commissioner had increased the declared value of the goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and penalty. The appellants contested the valuation method adopted by the department, which was based on Rules 5 to 8 and Chartered Engineer's valuation.
The learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. clarified that the department cannot reject transaction value without proper evidence, emphasizing the need to accept transaction value in the absence of contemporaneous evidence. The counsel cited various Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments supporting this position, advocating for a reduction in the fine and penalty based on previous rulings in similar cases.
The JDR, on the other hand, supported the department's valuation method, citing the acceptance of Chartered Engineer's certificate in a previous Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, the JDR highlighted the appellants' failure to obtain the necessary import license, justifying the imposition of fine and penalty under the EXIM Policy.
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, upheld the transaction value declared in the Bill of Entries, setting aside the enhancement made by the department. However, regarding the fine and penalty, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' non-compliance with the import license requirements but decided to reduce the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the declared value, respectively, following previous judgments involving similar imports of Computer Monitors and P-III Systems. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on these terms with consequential relief granted.
-
2008 (10) TMI 566
Issues Involved:
1. Commissioner's use of unsavory language in an order.
2. Apology submitted by the Commissioner.
3. Granting of waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Commissioner's use of unsavory language
The Commissioner was required to explain the use of unsavory remarks in an order, specifically the idiom "the tail wagging the dog." The Commissioner clarified that the idiom was used to convey a point to the appellant regarding the waiver of pre-deposit granted by the Tribunal. The Commissioner apologized for the language used, stating that there was no intention to belittle the Tribunal or its members. The Commissioner's explanation was accepted, and the matter was closed.
Issue 2: Apology submitted by the Commissioner
The JCDR representing the Commissioner submitted an apology on behalf of the Commissioner, stating that there was no intention to use unsavory remarks to demean the Tribunal or its members. The apology was accepted by the authorities, and it was acknowledged that unsavory language should not be used, regardless of intent. The matter was resolved upon accepting the apology.
Issue 3: Granting of waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case
The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit and linking of the appeal based on a previous stay order granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted the similarity of facts to a previous case where a waiver was granted. The Tribunal reproduced paragraphs from the previous stay order, highlighting the appellant's strong case regarding the duty demand and penalties imposed. Given the similarity in circumstances, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal, linking it with another pending appeal for an expedited hearing.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of unsavory language usage by the Commissioner, acceptance of the apology, and the granting of a waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case based on previous precedents and strong merits.
-
2008 (10) TMI 565
Income escaping assessment – non issuance of notice u/s 148 – remedy under section 292BB – held that:- The service of notice is a pre-condition for framing an assessment order under section 147. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on the provisions of section 292BB of the said Act which has been introduced with effect from 1-4-2008. However, we feel that no reliance on that provision can be placed for two reasons. The first reason being that the said provision is not applicable to the assessment year 2001-02. The second reason being that this argument was not at all being raised before the Tribunal. – Decided against the revenue.
-
2008 (10) TMI 564
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Civil Appeal citing a Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, dated December 21, 2000, as binding on the Department. No order was made regarding costs. (Case citation: 2008 (10) TMI 564 - SC)
............
|
9911796707
