The principal Notification No.15/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated the 7th March, 2002 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.171 (E), dated the 7th March, 2002 and was last amended by notification No.108/2008-Customs (N.T.), dated the 23rd September, 2008 [G.S.R. (E) 675 dated the 23rd September, 2008].
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, hereby appoints,- (i) the Commissioner of Central Excise, Siliguri to be the Commissioner of Customs within the jurisdiction of the: (a) districts of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Coochbehar and North Dinajpur in the State of West Bengal; and (b) the State of Sikkim.
Attention is invited to Policy Circular No. 78(RE-08/2004-09) dated 1.4.2009 to be read with Policy Circular No. 97(RE-08/2004-09) dated 8.7.2009 and Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification No. S.O.(E).1799 dated 21.7.2009 on the subject mentioned above.
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy – 2009-2014, the Central Government hereby amends Schedule – I (Imports) of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items.
As per the aforesaid newly inserted section 115WM, nothing contained in Chapter XII-H shall apply, in respect of any assessment for the assessment year (AY), commencing on 1.4.2010, or any subsequent AY. In other words, the fringe benefit tax (FBT) has been abolished from the AY 2010-11, onwards, i.e. from the financial year (FY) 2009-10, onwards.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
Where the assessee-society was storing the controlled commodities in its godowns as part of its own trading stock, it was not entitled to claim deduction for the margin of profit between issue price and sale price of the controlled commodities under section 80P(2)(e).
