TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no mistake in this part of the order also. - MA No. 25/Del/12 & ITA No. 3073/D/2009 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - SHRI R.P.TOLANI, AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Nagesher Rao, Advocate Respondent by: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL, AM: In this case, the Tribunal had passed the order on 17.6.2011, in which the appeal of the assessee was treated as partly allowed. The assessee moved a miscellaneous application on 10.2.2012 stating that certain mistakes apparent from record have crept in the order, which require rectification. The application was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. DR on 13.7.2012. Various issues raised in the course of the discussion are discussed here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. It is further submitted that the assessee did not hire any place for storage. Thus, even on handling over of the equipment by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), no PE came into existence. In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that it is not necessary that the assessee should hire or own any place or premise for PE to come into existence. The only requirement is that the assessee should have a place in India from which the business is partly or wholly carried on. 2.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The Tribunal had given a clear finding that the equipment was handed over to the assessee once it was cleared by the AAI on payment of customs duty. The assessee was responsible for insuring the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of Motorola Inc. relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is no mistake in this part of the order as in the case of Motorola Inc., the assessee has produced orders from customs authority in regard to payment of duty on import of equipment and software. 3.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The background facts are that the assessee was unable to produce any document regarding payment of customs duty on equipment and software. As against this, two separate orders were produced in the case of Motorola Inc. In this part of the order, the Tribunal has sought to distinguish between the facts of the two cases as above. Necessary consequence of failure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|