Assessing officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under section 147 can be made.
Smt. Kavitha Rajakoti Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Assessing Officer is required to act in a fair manner and need to consider the stay petition independently and pass a speaking order stating reasons as to why the stay application of the petitioner is not required to be considered
B Bala Narasimha Reddy Vs PR.CIT (AP High Court)- In the present case impugned order is bereft of any reasons and further the same has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act
In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
In the case of The CC&CE V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd., Kurnool, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that invoking Section 11A is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under section 11B which subsequently declared as unsustainable
M/s. ITC Limited Vs. CESTAT, Bangalore (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Larger Bench of Supreme Court had categorically held that any duty paid under mistake of law can be recovered only by resort to the provisions of Section 11B of the Act.
In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty
Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise Vs M/S Grip Engineers Pvt Ltd. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- In this Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.04.2003 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance of excisable goods invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act
In the case of CCE&C vs. M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and no subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing
CCEC v. Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- Mere cutting of jumbo rolls of paper into smaller sizes and printing thereon by job-worker resulting into ‘printed cork tipping paper’ does amount to ‘manufacture’ for purpose of charging excise duty.
