Assessee had been a manufacturer of “Carbon Black” since 2009. During the process of manufacturing Carbon Black, a waste gas, off gas, or tail gas emerged as a by-product, and having regard to environmental norms and pollution laws, assessee incinerated the gas so as to prevent the emission of toxic materials, i.e., carbon monoxide (CO) and other hydrocarbons.
Assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal as he was old and not well acquainted and conversant with the digital system in order to follow up with the income tax notices, which were posted in IT portal. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
Assessee-company was a public company principally engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of grey cement, building and cement related products. Competition Commission of India (CCI) was a statutory authority constituted under the Competition Act, 2002.
Department was directed to release the confiscated Areca Nut on condition specified as it were confiscated due to non-submission of E waybill. The bench modified the conditions imposed by the Single Judge.
Deduction under section 80IB (10) was allowable to assessee as it had a reasonable & bona fide cause for not filing the return of income within the time permitted under Section 139(1). Once in the given facts, assessee had been held entitled to claim the specifically computed deductions, then it should not be burdened with taxes which it was otherwise not liable to pay under law.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Assessee-company was engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Injection Moulded Machines (PIMM) and was duly registered with the Central Excise department, having jurisdiction over the factory of such manufacture of the excisable goods.
The designated authority was directed to release the confiscated Digital Multifunction Equipment on condition that, assessee should pay/deposit the enhanced duty and this order would not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to Law.
Charges of Know How agreement were not required to be added to the assessable value of imported goods in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 as there was no technical know-how fees attributable towards post import related/associated acts and activities and thereby no case arose for scaling up the assessable value with the inclusion of the royalty charges.
Since the appellate authority had failed to examine issue of customs duty exemption Notification No. 45/2017-Cus., which provided different levels / measures of exemption benefits to the re-imported goods depending upon which export benefits, like duty drawback, rebate etc.
