In the instant case, Addisons Paints & Chemical Ltd. was manufacturing paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Excise Tariff Act. The final products manufactured were packed in tins and plastic containers which were then put in carton boxes for the purpose of transportation and then sold to the wholesale dealers.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that there is no dispute that the Appellant vide application dated December 16, 2004 has applied for Centralized Registration and the letter bears the stamp of the receipt by the Department. This request can be considered as an application for Centralized Registration, which was granted subsequently by the Department. Thus, Cenvat Credit should not be disallowed.
The Hon’ble CESTAT Bangalore relying upon the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Muniruddin [2013(31) STR 136 (All.)] held that even ignorance of law can be one of the reasons for invoking erstwhile Section 80 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, penalties imposed under various Sections of the Finance Act were waived.
In the instant case, Fazlani Exports Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in export of goods outside India for which it has availed various services viz. Terminal Handling Service, GTA services etc. Accordingly, the Appellant filed several refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated July 7, 2009 read with Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated October 6, 2007 as amended,
The Assessee contented that the so-called vend fee in the present case is nothing but a consensual arrangement by which ultimately machinery and equipment used by sugar mills which were very old and which require urgent repair / replacement could be so repaired or replaced.
Once the registration u/s 12AA granted to trust and the activities of the trust are genuine and as per object of the trust, CIT or any other authority empowered in this behalf cannot cancel registration on ground of involvement of trust in any activity other than charitable purpose.
There is undoubtedly no material available to even remotely reflect that consideration over and above what was shown to be paid in the registered sale deed of the said property was made over to the seller. In these circumstances, it was not fair in the first place to refer the said property for estimation of its market value by DVO.
In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (supra), the Hon’ble Court has held that ‘if there is no reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on new tangible material, then the reopening of assessment amounts to impermissible review’.
The assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable.
The assessee submitted that he produced following evidences before the AO to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vinod Kumar :- (i) Copy of Share Application received from Mr. Vinod Kumar (ii) Copy of Shares Certificate of shares Allotted to him (iii) Copy of confirmation received from him
