|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2184 Records
-
2018 (5) TMI 2190
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - income relevant to the receipts on account of EDC charges had escaped assessment - Notice issued beyond period of four years - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the facts of the case and issue under consideration are exactly identical to that of the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 [2017 (12) TMI 1801 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] discussed that the EDC charges have been disclosed by the assessee in the balance sheet of the assessee which form part of the documents filed with the return of income and further the AO had also gone through the balance sheet and made various queries to assessee through questionnaires dated 18.7.2011 and 10.10.2011.
The EDC charges formed part of Schedule D of the balance sheet under the head ‘other liabilities’. No new tangible material had come to the knowledge of the AO.
AO has recorded that “during perusal of records in this case, it was seen that EDC charges were received by the assessee”. Hence the opinion regarding the escapement of income had been derived by the AO on re-appraisal of the material already available on record.
Tribunal has also discussed that what the assessee was supposed to disclosed was that important and primarily facts pertaining to the income and not reasoning or logic which would lead to the conclusion of the nature of receipt. When the assessee in this case had already disclosed the necessary facts about the EDC charges i.e the nature and quantum of receipts, hence, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly any material facts necessary for the assessment. Thus, held that the balance sheet and profit and loss account are the primary documents, which are attached along with return. AO is supposed to go through these primary documents. These documents do not fall in the category of books of account or other evidences which may escape the attention of the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings.
In the case in hand before us also, the facts are identical to that for assessment year 2008-09. The balance sheet wherein the EDC charges found mention under the head “other liability” was duly attached with the return of income.
AO had duly considered the said balance sheet and applied his mind and issued various queries to the assessee regarding various expenditure, liabilities and assets etc. forming part of the balance sheet through questionnaires dated 18.7.2011 and 10.10.2011. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for the assessment.
Thus the reopening is hereby held bad in law and reassessment framed in this case is set aside and the consequential additions made during the re-assessment, hence, stood deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2189
Liability of insurer to indemnify the insured when the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a valid route permit at the time of the accident - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The Appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out Under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers.
Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and Ors. cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.
Conclusion - i) The insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured due to the absence of a valid permit. ii) The insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and subsequently recover it from the owner and driver.
There are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2188
Cenvat Credit availed by the assessee and utilized in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products - Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- It is found that the appellants’ stand that they had maintained separate Cenvat accounts does not stand considered in detail by the lower authorities. Further even after the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit after the clearance of the exempted goods, it has to be held as if no credit was ever availed by them.
In such a scenario, it is deemed fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Inasmuch as the matter stands remanded, other issues would also be re-considered by the adjudicating authority.
The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2187
Penalty u/s 271C - no valid notice was issued and served upon the assessee before imposition of penalty - delay in filing the quarterly e-TDS returns - HELD THAT:- Under Section 274 (1) of the Act, “no order imposing penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard”. But, in the instant case, when undisputedly, no notice has been issued to the assessee, who has duly communicated the change of its name and address of its registered office and consequently change in TAN particulars were also carried out by the Revenue department in the records, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law on this score only.
Delay in issuing notice - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kareemul Hajazi vs. State of NCT of Delhi [2011 (1) TMI 1596 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the period of six months prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act ought to be treated as reasonable period for issuance of such show-cause notice. So, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly concluded that even show cause notice has been issued with inordinate delay and as such, penalty is not sustainable.
Since company known as Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd was not in existence on which the show-cause notice was issued and the assessee company has never been informed, if any such penalty proceedings are initiated against it, the penalty levied by AO is not sustainable. Even otherwise, when status of the assessee after change of name and address of its registered office stood inextricably mixed up with the identity of Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd and no notice has been served upon the assessee, the defect is incurable. Even otherwise, the ld. DR has not brought on record any document if valid notice was ever issued or served upon the assessee, so order of penalty passed by the AO without issuance and service of a valid notice upon the assessee is illegal, void ab initio, hence no order in the eyes of law.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2186
Delayed employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided - CIT(A) justification in holding that employee’s contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision of section 43B and not by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act. - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We do not think that there is any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has directed the AO to verify the dates of payment of employee’s contribution and delete the same, if the payments have been made before the due date of filing of the return of income. In the result, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.
Addition on account of advance received against depreciation deferred - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the facts of the present case are pari-materia to the facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 281 - SUPREME COURT] as well as the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of NHPC [2014 (11) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI] and the latter decision has been rendered in the context of taxability of Advance against depreciation under the normal provisions of the Act. CIT(A) has rightly followed the ratio laid down in the said decisions wherein as held it is correct in holding that advance against depreciation cannot be added under the computation of the normal income.
. We donot find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed. The ground taken by the Revenue is thus dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2185
Liquidation order under section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of Section 33(2) of The Code to initiate Liquidation Process, the Resolution Professional at any time during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process but before confirmation of Resolution Plan, intimates the AA of the decision of the Committee of Creditors to Liquidate the Corporate Debtor the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a Liquidation Order as prescribed u/s 33 of The Code. It is intimated that after due deliberations the Committee of Creditors passed a Resolution for Liquidation of the Company with 100% Voting Share in favour of the said Resolution.
As far as the Valuation of the property of the Corporate Debtor is concerned, there was no confusion for initiation of Liquidation Proceedings for IRP who is now to be termed as "Liquidator". Therefore, to avoid such high percentage of sacrifice, it is necessary to take a decision in favour of the Financial Creditor to initiate Liquidation Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor who had mortgaged the property and the Loan in question was granted. The Debt in question is intricately linked with the property mortgaged hence cannot be segregated in the process of Liquidation proceedings. Therefore, it is hereby authorized that the Liquidator shall take necessary steps to liquidate the assets of the Corporate Debtor, for which a Valuation Report is already on record.
There may or may not be restrictions on the assets of a Corporate Debtor in the event Resolution process is commenced but right now the proceedings for Liquidation has been commenced. As a result, the assets of the corporate Debtor can be subjected to Liquidation by invoking the jurisdiction prescribed u/s 33(2) of the Code.
The Resolution Professional is hereby appointed as a "Liquidator', to proceed with the Liquidation Process - Application disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2184
Seeking quashing of the impugned arbitral tribunal award - seeking to restrain the respondent to create any third party interest in respect of the Asset Area 3 in the Hospitality District which are subject matter of the agreements between the parties - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Validity of the termination of the agreements - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the award would reveal the annual license fee only till 16.07.2015 is allowed by the learned arbitral tribunal and the argument of the petitioner is against the record. Qua the annual development cost of ₹ 20.00 Crores, admittedly, the said cost was payable in a particular manner as set out by the terms of the contract. Further a letter dated 25.05.2015 written by the petitioner to the respondent admits the petitioner would pay the annual license fee for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 along with pending advance development cost of ₹ 20,07,50,000/- by 25.02.2017. Hence, at this stage it would be out of place for the petitioner to challenge the award on advance development cost.
The arguments of the petitioner is totally misconceived since in the instant case the award both majority and minority were made on 27.06.2017 in the presence of all the parties after due notice to them. It was prior to the expiry of extended period of 06 months which rather came to end on 30.06.2017. Since the fee of learned tribunal was outstanding so vide order dated 27.06.2017 it exercised a lien on the award. Hence only the delivery of the award was withheld per Section 39(1) of the Act. In its order dated 08.09.2017, the learned tribunal did not adjudicate the interse rights of the parties in relation to the project agreements which were subject matter of the arbitration but merely vacated the lien on the award. Hence the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong since the fee of learned tribunal was merely paid by the respondent.
A bare perusal of award would reveal the arbitral tribunal has examined all the documents placed on record, appreciated the evidence led by the parties and made a reasoned award. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited to see if the learned tribunal has transgressed beyond the contract or has not acted in accordance with law or if has applied wrong principles of law. The Court under Section 34 of the Act does not sit in appeal over the award and there is no scope of re-appreciation of the evidence or re-evaluation on merits or reinterpreting the terms of the contract.
The position has been clarified by the Amending Act 2015 to the Act wherein Section 34(2A) has been inserted which provide an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by the re-appreciation of the evidence.
The objections under Section 34 of the Act, thus, are dismissed - application dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2183
Maintainability of suit - Justification of injunction granted by the learned trial Court - invalidation of sale transaction that had taken place in favour of the Appellant - Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter Under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act the Respondent No. 2 has an adequate and efficacious remedy and it is essential to permit the Respondent No. 2 to have recourse to the said remedies and agitate before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal all issues that may be open in law. All objections as may be available to the Appellant may also be raised before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal. The learned Debts Recovery Tribunal and thereafter the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, if required to be approached by the Respondent No. 2, will decide the matter with utmost expedition. Untill the aforesaid proceedings are complete while confirming the auction sale in favour of the Appellant we direct the Appellant not to encumber the property in question or to transfer it to any third party.
The order of the High Court is set aside subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed and the appeals are allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2182
Levy of Excise Duty on scrap generated during job work - Department was of the view that the job workers neither returned the scrap generated during the process of job work to the Principal manufacturer nor discharged the duty liability - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered in favour of the appellants by the decisions in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 42779/17 dated 02.11.2017, Final Order No. 41315/17 dated 25.07.2017 and Final Order No. 40604/2017 dated 26.07.2017.
Following the same, the demand cannot sustain.
The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2181
Permission to delete proforma respondent No.6 from the array of parties - HELD THAT:- Application for permission to delete proforma respondent No.6 from the array of parties is allowed at the risk of the petitioner. It is found that a very large number of adjournments have been taken in this matter by the parties particularly by the respondents.
The Trial Court is liberally granting adjournments - it is made clear that the Trial Court must hear the matter expeditiously and if any adjournment is sought on behalf of the plaintiff, it may be granted for a period not more than a week and subject to minimum costs of Rs.10,000/-.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2180
Addition under the head 'Capital Gain' - nature of land sold - as per AO land sold by the assessee was not Agricultural Land - gain from the sale of land was claimed as exempt u/s 10 on the ground that capital gain has arisen on account of sale of agricultural land, which is not an asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Land revenue shows that it was an agricultural land and some agricultural operation were carried out and simply because assessee had not shown agricultural income that does not mean no agricultural activity was ever carried out; secondly, even at the time of sale the agricultural land, the land continued to be agricultural land and no change of land used was ever sought at the time of sale and now it has also been brought on record that even after the sale also the land remained agricultural land in the hands of the seller and till date land used has not been changed and; lastly, even if land has been sold to a hotelier but if it is not used for commercial purpose even after the sale, then does not make any difference whether a prospective hotelier had purchased a land. All the facts and materials which has been discussed above clearly pointed out that it was clear cut sale of agricultural land, and therefore, any Long Term Capital Gain arisen from sale of such land is to be treated as exempt u/s. 10.
Further in the case of Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT DELHI] held that if the land in question was agricultural land at the time of purchase by the assessee and also at the time of acquisition, then the said land would clearly be held as agricultural land irrespective of the fact that assessee intended to use the land for industrial purposes and did not carried out any agricultural operations.
Even then also no capital gain could be charged on sale of such agricultural land. Similar view has been taken in the case of DLF United Ltd [1984 (11) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus, in view of our independent appraisal of facts on record and the ratio as culled out from the decision cited by the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) that the gain on sale of such land cannot be taxed as capital gain.
MAT u/s. 115JB - As we find that, firstly, neither the issue of computation or taxation of book profit u/s. 115JB has been raised by the Assessing Officer; nor such grounds were raised in the original grounds of appeal by the Department. Apart from that, once Assessing Officer has not treated the said gain for the purposes of book profit then by way of such ground the issue cannot be raised by the Department. Otherwise also when the income of agricultural land is exempt from tax, then the said exempt income cannot be added to the books profit while calculating the MAT u/s. 115JB. Thus, the said ground raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained and same is dismissed.
Treatment of amount received from compromise agreement as taxable under capital gain tax - Looking to the nature of payment which is on account of compromise agreement and also settlement of withdrawal of cases, it cannot be held that the said amount received by the assessee is on account of sale of agricultural land, and therefore, ld. CIT (A) has rightly held that the said amount cannot be treated as exempt from capital gain tax and accordingly the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the grounds raised in the Cross Objection is dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2179
Recovery of an amount alleged to be payable by the Petitioner without providing any information or details to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is dispose of with direction to the respondents to supply all the orders upon which recovery of amount in question is made within a period of one week from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and after receiving those orders the petitioner will be at liberty to file reply within a period of one week thereafter. After receiving reply from the petitioner, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law to take further action for recovery of amount in question in accordance with law within a period of 15 days thereafter. Til then no further action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of amount.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2178
Requirement to pay the amount for the purchase of all the respondent’s shares in the Company - HELD THAT:- Petitioner wished to examine on that date in how much time this payment can be made.
The shares, which are informed is no longer the subject matter of any attachment, and are free to be sold, should be purchased by Respondent No.7 at the price of Rs.100 Crores, to be paid by Mr. Kapil Sibal’s client within a period of 9 months from today.
SLP disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2177
Examination of time for making payment - buyout amount determination - valuation of shares - HELD THAT:- Petitioner wishes to examine in how much time this payment can be made.
List on Thursday, the 17th May, 2018.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2176
Seeking release of the attached property or alternatively, to permit the respondents to use/occupy such property on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the property would remain attached subject to further orders of the Court, however, the applicants would be permitted to occupy the said property on deposit of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month in advance with the Registrar General of this Court - Application disposed off.
Seeking release of his passport and permission to travel outside the country from 28.05.2018 to 05.06.2018 - HELD THAT:- The respondent has already been discharged by order dated 15.05.2017 and there is no stay on the operation of the entire order, however, stay was limited insofar as the order related to the release of the properties which were attached - Keeping in view of the fact that the original record of the Trial Court has been received and is with the Registry, the Registry is directed to release the passport of the respondent No.1 to him. Respondent No.1 is permitted to travel abroad strictly as per the itinerary furnished to the Court and, on his return, he shall duly intimate the Department of his return. The respondent shall not do anything which shall prejudice either the present proceedings filed by the petitioner or the evidence. Henceforth, the petitioner shall seek permission of this court for any travel out of the country - Application disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2175
Justification in invoking provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s 80IA(10) - assessee had earned higher margins than the mean margins earned by comparables selected by assessee - AO held that ordinary profits as per transfer pricing report was @ 12.55% as against 29.14% shown by the assessee - case of the assessee before Authorities below was that in the absence of any arrangement between the assessee and its group companies/AEs, margins earned by assessee could not be held to be more than ordinary profits. It was also stressed by the assessee that it had not earned more than ordinary profits - HELD THAT:- We find the issue raised in present appeal stands covered by a series of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal and on this count, we rely on the decision of M/s. Honey well Automation India Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 494 - ITAT PUNE] wherein held even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins of the assessee and the comparables show existence of more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee, so however, it was still imperative for the AO to establish on the basis of substantive evidence and corroborative material that qua section 10A r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act, the course of business between the assessee and the associated enterprises is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits with the intent of abusing tax concession.
Quite clearly, in the entire assessment order, there is no whisper of any material or evidence in this regard. Thus we conclude, holding that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has not proved that any arrangement had been arrived between the parties which resulted in higher profits. Consequently, the re-working of the profits by AO by invoking section 10A r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act is not justified.
Thus, the issue arising in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal on this count in favour of the assessee. Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2174
Reinstatement of Behram Ardeshir (Ardeshir) as an executor after his renunciation - reversion to a prior state of affairs where Ardeshir had renounced executorship and Sardal continued alone - HELD THAT:- Simply on the ground of physical and mental incapacity Sardal must be removed at once. His acts as an executor are being directed entirely by his son and this is plainly apparent from what has transpired in Court - Vasant Narayan Sardal is removed as an executor but in consideration of his age and health, I will, for the foregoing observations notwithstanding, direct that this removal has to be read on account of his infirmity and advanced years and his demonstrable incapacity to discharge the duties required of an executor appointed under a Will.
Notice of Motion will have to be allowed. Those Consent Terms were, on the face of it, not such as could have been taken in a Testamentary Suit pending probate. They were directly contrary to the terms of the Will. Very often even probate proceedings are compromised but where in that compromise probate is accepted what then follows is a family arrangement not inconsistent with the grant or with the title that has passed through grant. In the present case, there was no possibility of any such family arrangement or compromise following on the grant of probate because that probate completely excluded the surviving members of the family.
Notice of motion allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2173
Seeking a direction in favour of the applicant for payment of dues under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - priority of dues against the statutory as well non-statutory secured and non-secured debts including on assets subject to mortgage or pledge - HELD THAT:- In the present case, as already noted by this court, the OL invited claims on 23.01.2004. Thereafter the claims were processed and payments were released in favour of those whose claims were accepted by order dated 27.09.2005. Reference may be had to the said order dated 27.09.2005. The said order noted that there are 770 workmen who have lodged their claims before the OL. Total of these claims add up to Rs.5.04 crores. The court accepted that the claims of the worker would to the tune of Rs.3.40 crores. There were claims of three secured creditors, namely, Canara Bank, HFC and Essenda Finanze Pvt. Ltd. which were for Rs.374 lacs, Rs.120 lacs and Rs.4 lacs. Noting that the OL has Rs.3.86 crores, the court ordered distribution of the fund to the secured creditors and workers on pari passu basis in terms of Sections 529 and 529A of the Act.
In the rejoinder that was filed by the applicant to the reply of the OL, the applicant has attached a copy of a communication dated 18.06.2004 which was allegedly sent to the OL. Unfortunately this document has been filed alongwith the rejoinder and the OL has not been able to respond to the same. There is also nothing to show that this document was served on the OL. It is further stated in the letter that the dues are likely to the tune of Rs.50 lacs, which are pending and are not deposited by the respondent company. As already noted, this letter was not in response to claims invited by the OL. Even if such a letter had been received by the OL, it cannot be a substitute for the statutory procedure which exist for inviting claims from the creditors of the respondent company.
A liquidator has to give notice inviting creditors, who have not proved their debts. As per Rule 151, the affidavit proving a debt shall contain or refer to a statement of account and shall be in Form 66.
The applicant is only entitled to the amount that is now left with the OL, namely, a sum of Rs. 5,76,162/- or about. The applicant cannot be permitted to disturb the position/steps which have been taken by this court way back in 2005. The applicant has merrily taken five years to file its first application attempting to prove its dues. Thereafter, the applicant had withdrawn the said application and has now filed the present application in 2015. In view of the settled legal position, the applicant would be entitled to only the amount now remaining with the OL.
Application allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2172
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - misappropriation of money for illegal monetary gains after demonetization - Conspiracy with Ashish Kumar, Bank Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, one Chartered Accountant and one mediator who used to bring money to the bank to earn huge profits by converting black money in the form of old demonetized currency into new currency notes - HELD THAT:- From the statements of these two witnesses of the prosecution, it is evident that 10% commission of Yogesh Mittal was deposited in the various firms from where approximately INR 8 crores was transferred to the two firms of petitioner namely Shrinivas Enterprises and Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation over to the firms/companies of Govind Babu and Naveen Somani in discharge of the liability of Yogesh Mittal. Petitioner, if at all is a beneficiary for a sum of INR 2 lakhs the petitioner has no role in the deposit of cash in the accounts of Raj Kumar Goel or Yogesh Mittal from which demand drafts were made which were recovered from Kamal Jain, CA of Rohit Tandon.
Evidence is documentary in nature and the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR 1 lakhs with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of residential address the same will be intimated to the Court concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2171
Change in classification of product from 94060091 to 44121000 - fabricated material - HELD THAT:- The limited issue involved in this case is classification of the fabricated material which is rightly classifiable under 94060091 and the same is approved - the departmental appeal is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
