In the present case, it is not even the case of the Revenue that shares were sold at a price lower than the market rate. If that be so, the question of inflating the loss by transferring the shares to group company would not arise. Under ordinary circumstances, it is always open to the assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on to certain bunch of shares or to sell the same to avoid further loss,
Tribunal were correct in taking the view that the refund was liable to be paid to the present respondents as service tax was not passed on to the buyers/customers and there was no unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal was justified in recording the aforesaid findings. In the facts of the case, it was not possible to ascribe any wilful suppression or mis-statement on the part of the assessee for not paying excise duty because during the period in question, various decisions of the Tribunal were to the effect that the activity of cutting, bending, bunching of plates or channels in which the assessee was engaged, did not amount to manufacturing activity. In Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), Apex Court observed that when there was bona fide doubt as to non-excisability of the goods due to divergent views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the extended period of 5 years cannot be invoked. Mere failure or negligence in not taking license or not paying duty, is not sufficient for invoking extended period.
Sub-section (2) of Section 194C under ordinary circumstances does not cover an individual or Hindu Undivided family for the liability of deducting tax at source on the payments credited or made to the sub-contractor. However, proviso brings such individual or HUF within the fold of sub-section (2) if in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year during which such sum is credited or paid, such individual or HUF was covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 44AB.
[a] The first test is whether the initial acquisition of the subject matter of transaction was with the intention of dealing in the item, or with a view to finding an investment. If the transaction, since the inception, appears to be impressed with the character of a commercial transaction entered into with a view to earn profit, it would furnish a valuable guideline.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
Land in question was declared surplus land under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 which was having depressing effect on the value of the asset, the valuation had to be made on the basis of assumption that the purchaser would be able to enjoy the property as the holder, but with restrictions and prohibitions contained in the ULC Act and in such case value of the property or land would be reduced.
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
In view of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in various cases the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006, i.e., the date of enactment of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F No. 275/7/2010- CX8A, dated 30.6.2010 stands rescinded.
A Division Bench of this Court in Colourtex v. Union of India 2006 (198) ELT 169 (Guj.) has held that exact differences has to be formulated by members of the Division Bench of the Tribunal and it is not open to them to formulate a question as to whether the appeal is to be rejected or remanded for a fresh decision for determination of duty, confiscation and penalty etc. In the present case it is seen that the question formulated by the Division Bench does not specify the requirement of sub-section (5) of Section 129C of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by learned third member as well as the difference of opinion expressed, generally, by differing member without precise formulation of the point of difference of the Tribunal cannot be entertained. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the learned third member as well as the difference of opinion formulated by the differing members of the Division Bench are set aside.
