In the present case, it was found that the input supplier supplied input accompanied with Central Excise invoice. There is no dispute of genuinity of invoice. It is clearly evident from the statement of input supplied by the transporter. In such a situation
It was held that the eligible profits are not to be subjected to the adjustment under Section 72 of the Act, and the brought forward loss from the unit eligible for the relief under Section 10B cannot be adjusted against the profits from the other units
As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
It is now settled position of law that, while considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal or the Appellate Authorities are directed to take into consideration three factors namely, prima facie case, undue hardship and the interest of Revenue.
G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statement furnished by the assessees under Section 200A of the Act which was held as unsustainable
CIT Vs. Mechmen (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In this case court observed that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C which is a fact decided by ITAT. No paper or document was seized against the assessee in the search operation.
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.
CCCE&S Vs. M/s TPSC (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh HC)- Contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal ought not to have granted absolute waiver and also stay of recovery without imposing any condition, does not merit any consideration in the facts of the case.
Both assessee and revenue are in appeal against the action of deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. CIT (A) has deleted part of penalty levied but another part of the penalty was retained by him. Assessee is in appeal against the retention order and revenue is against the deletion of penalty.
