The petitioner was engaged in the generation of electricity by burning coal resulting in production of Fly Ash as by-product which has commercial value in the market and thus it can be said that Fly Ash is marketable.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Joy Foam P. Ltd held that the input credit of inputs need not to be reversed even in case the payment of duty has been ordered to be remitted under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
In the case of Suparesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that whenever, a transaction of rendering services is taken out by the re- insurance broker in India in order to get the services of re-insurer abroad for assisting the client in India
In the case of Commissioner of Customs v Kamalabhai, Madras High Court held that the exported goods u/s 113 can’t be confiscated but the penalties in section 114 related to “Attempt to make exports” will be applied as Attempt is a step to actual export.
Provision of section 147 states that revenue can reopen an assessment within four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year in which return was filed, if any income escaped from assessment. If revenue wants to reopen an assessment after the expiry of four years prescribed then there must be failure on part of assessee to disclose fully
Hon’ble High Court relied on the decision of Cocanada reported in 57 ITR 306 and Sasoon V/s CIT in which it was held that carry forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the capital gain from sale of depreciable asset.
Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the illness of husband offered by one of the assessee Mrs P.S Rajeshwari was untenable.The tribunal further pointed out that plea of illness between November,2010 and November 2013 and sudden regaining of health was not supported by evidence.
In another case of recovery of disputed dues by the Commercial Taxes department, by attaching the bank account of the assessee, during pendency of revision petition, the Hon ‘ble Madras High Court has directed the revision authority to dispose of the revision petition along with stay application within four weeks and kept the recovery in abeyance.
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., it was held that non-mentioning of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would render the Show-Cause Notice outside the purview of Section 72.
The Hon’ble Madras HC in the case of PK Shefi vs. CESTAT held that the tribunal is not right to order pre-deposit prejudicial to the interest of the assessee when the issue was debatable and the assessee has reasonably shown the likely financial hardship to be suffered.
