A reading of second proviso to section 10B of the Act thus clearly shows what is contemplated as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things for the purpose of Section 10B(1) of the Act. Thus, whenever local sales of articles or things does not exceed 25% of the total sale, then the profits and gains derived from the such domestic sales are considered as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things qualifying for deduction.
The CIT (A) after considering entire evidence of record found that purchase and sale transactions were proved. He further found that payment of the sale price was made to the assessee through bank channel and not in cash as such the transactions are actual transactions and not a fictitious accommodation entries. The sale transactions cannot be disbelieved only for the reason that the assessee could not give the identity of the purchasers.
We have not found prima facie case for the appellant insofar as the demand of service tax on life membership fees is concerned. Though it has been claimed that such fees are refundable as per the by-laws of the appellant, the claim is yet to be substantiated. We have not been shown a copy of the by-laws.
The assessee engages itself in executing catering contracts for Railways in respect of two trains. In those trains, its personnel are deployed for sale of small articles of daily necessity and use to the passengers. Per force, the payments received by them are necessarily in cash. These amounts are collected and in turn handed over to the assessee.
It is well settled that the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on the services availed by them in the course of business of manufacturing as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.).
Decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the firm has failed to take reasonable steps for realizing the export proceeds is a finding based on facts viz: (a) that the appellants continued to export despite continuous defaults made by the said party in clearing the outstanding; (b) that the importer approached R.B.I.
In the case at hand, there is a recovery of foreign currency from the co-accused. The relationship of employer and employee has been admitted both by the Petitioner and the co-accused. The statement of the co-accused and the other documents seized show that the co-accused was acting on the behest of the Petitioner.
The question which falls for consideration in this matter is not of petitioners suffering prejudice or not by grant of impugned Approval but is whether it results in failure of justice. It is in this context, grant of post decisional hearing assumes importance. Apex Court in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy [2005] 6 SCC 321, has considered the issue of no prejudice vis-à-vis grant of post decisional hearing while observing as under:-
This Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Mr. Salman Khan [Income Tax Appeal No.2362 of 2009] decided on 1st December, 2009 has considered similar question and has held that in the absence of notice under section 143(2) (prior to the insertion of section 292BB), the reassessment order cannot be sustained.
On perusal of the provisions laid down under section 153C, it is apparent that after issuance of notice under section 153C, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (against which incriminating material has been found during the course of search conducted on a person) assess or re-assess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.
