The Central Government has issued a Notification dated 01.03.2002 and in the said Notification it has classified the Electronic Automatic Regulators under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. In the present appeal, the Revenue effect is less than Rs.6 lacs and since the Revenue itself has classified the goods in dispute under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 from 01.03.2002, it may not be necessary for this Court to consider in detail the appeal filed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the period after 01.03.2002, in view of the Notification issued by the Central Government, the goods, namely Electronic Automatic Regulators would fall under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. With this observation and clarification, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court. . In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
No doubt there is a specific entry which speaks of Slagwool and Rockwool under Sub-heading No.6803.00, but there is yet another entry which is consciously introduced by the Legislature under sub-heading No.6807.10, which speaks of goods in which Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof are manufactured by use of more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are those goods in which more than 25% by weight of one or more of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. If that be the case, then, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied and the same has been done by the adjudicating authority,
The core issue that falls for our consideration and decision in this appeal is: whether aluminium grills can be termed as Extruded aluminium products? If the answer is in positive, the assessee would be covered by Item Serial No.7 of the Product Code 61 of the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (for short “the DEPB Scheme”). The assessee has succeeded before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Revenue in this appeal calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order of the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has set aside the order of confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Under Section 36(1) (vii) of the ITA 1961, the tax payer carrying on business is entitled to a deduction, in the computation of taxable profits, of the amount of any debt which is established to have become a bad debt during the previous year, subject to certain conditions. However, a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s) is not allowed as a deduction in the computation of taxable profits.
CCE Vs. M/s. Food & Healthcare Specialities & ANR.(Supreme Court) – In the present case, as aforesaid, neither did the Tribunal address this aspect of the matter, nor did it consider whether the Assessee and Heinz are related persons. It based its decision solely on the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority ‘that the status of the Assessee was not better than that of a hired labour’.
ACIT Vs Dhariya Construction Co. (Supreme Court)- The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon.
ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Supreme Court)- Memorandum explaining the clauses of the Finance Bill, 1991 contained in the circular dated 19.12.1991 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to come to the conclusion that the Parliament intended to exclude items which were unrelated to the export turnover from the computation of deduction and while excluding such items which are unrelated to export for the purpose of Section 80HHC, Parliament has taken due note of the fact that the exporter assessee would have incurred such expenditure in earning the profits and to avoid a distorted figure of export profits
CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (SC) – Supreme Court has on 08.02.2012 reversed Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals and confirming the decision of Special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO held as follows:- Objective of DEPB scheme is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty on the import content of the export products. Hence, it has direct nexus with the cost of the imports made by an exporter for manufacturing the export products.
Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision in Al-Kabeer Exports Ltd Vs. CIT, reversing the High Court’s ruling and affirming the Tribunal’s special bench decision.
