It is an admitted position that no notice under Section 143(2) had been issued while making assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal has discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But in a case where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.
Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that the appellant has adopted a novel way of splitting the consideration with nomenclature of reimbursement of expenses. Deliberate splitting is not possible to be ruled out when splitting is not intended by law. Once splitting is attributable to a motive, the appellant cannot get any shelter under the purview of law.
In the entire scenario, we note that admittedly, a wrong order got issued (as the mistake happened in the hands of Steno) without noticing the facts of the present case, the replacement of said order cannot be considered to be a review of the same. The entire order, which got issued was a mistake inasmuch as the same does not relate to the facts of the present case except that the reference of Appeal No. and impugned order-in-appeal match in the preamble to those in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication.
In case of Ashok Taksali (supra), the Rajasthan High Court came across a similar question. The Bench was of the opinion that once a salary income of the block year has been taxed and such tax has been deducted at source, there is no question of holding that the income of the assessee was undisclosed income of the block period. It was observed as under:-
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendments in each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
As regards fumigation charges, a specialized process for cleaning the containers, the Commissioner has allowed the claim on the ground that the fumigation is mandatory when agricultural products are exported and such fumigation can be done only by the Government approved agencies. Very same issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2012] 21 taxmann.com 410 (Ahd – CESTAT), wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that notification prescribed a condition that there has to be a written agreement between the buyer and the seller about testing and analysis of the product, if the service has been received without written agreement, the benefit of refund would not be admissible. In this case, fumigation is a specialized cleaning process, requiring to satisfy the condition of notification of written agreement between buyer and seller and ld. Counsel for the respondent fairly agree that they do not have a written agreement.
Firstly, the petitioners had lodged their refund claims at the relevant time itself way back in the year 1991 when the question of classification was decided in their favour by the Commissioner. Secondly, the Department did not release the refund for a considerable period of time since such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal. Thirdly, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the petitioners’ case on 11-10-2002 with respect to the refund and not with respect to the original claim of classification.
In the instant case the appellant is not rendering such service on commission basis. The amount paid by the publications is a fixed retainer fee on monthly basis. Thus by the above Circular, the appellant’s activity is not taxable under Advertising Agency during the disputed period. The Government intends to exclude print media from the purview of Service tax. In case of advertising services also, the circulars clarifying that the sale of space for advertising would not be taxable under the category of advertising services were primarily meant to save the print media from the burden of tax. In the services of sale of space of time for advertisement, a specific exclusion has been made to this effect. “Sale of space or time for Advertisement Services” was brought into the Service tax net w.e.f. 1-5-2006 only. The disputed period in the instant case is prior to that. Thus, the activity of the appellant during the disputed period is not taxable under Advertising Agency Service and Sale of Space or time for Advertisement Services too.
The CESTAT has recorded finding that there is prima facie finding of suppression of production and clandestine removal. The balance sheets thus will not reflect the true and correct financial position of the company. The Tribunal was lenient enough in directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 1 crore and waiving the remaining amount of Excise duty and penalty, which together with would amount to about Rs. 16 crores. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law for consideration and interference in this appeal. The Central Excise Appeal is accordingly dismissed in-limine.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and taking into account all the contentions raised by the affidavits and reply affidavits, considering the decisions of other High Courts, Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this High Court on the issues raised by the Regional Director and the submissions during the course of hearing, I am satisfied that the observations made by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, do not survive. I have come to the conclusion that the present scheme of arrangement is in the interest of its shareholders and creditors as well as in the public interest and the same deserves to be sanctioned.
