As regards fumigation charges, a specialized process for cleaning the containers, the Commissioner has allowed the claim on the ground that the fumigation is mandatory when agricultural products are exported and such fumigation can be done only by the Government approved agencies. Very same issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2012] 21 taxmann.com 410 (Ahd – CESTAT), wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that notification prescribed a condition that there has to be a written agreement between the buyer and the seller about testing and analysis of the product, if the service has been received without written agreement, the benefit of refund would not be admissible. In this case, fumigation is a specialized cleaning process, requiring to satisfy the condition of notification of written agreement between buyer and seller and ld. Counsel for the respondent fairly agree that they do not have a written agreement.
Firstly, the petitioners had lodged their refund claims at the relevant time itself way back in the year 1991 when the question of classification was decided in their favour by the Commissioner. Secondly, the Department did not release the refund for a considerable period of time since such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal. Thirdly, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the petitioners’ case on 11-10-2002 with respect to the refund and not with respect to the original claim of classification.
In the instant case the appellant is not rendering such service on commission basis. The amount paid by the publications is a fixed retainer fee on monthly basis. Thus by the above Circular, the appellant’s activity is not taxable under Advertising Agency during the disputed period. The Government intends to exclude print media from the purview of Service tax. In case of advertising services also, the circulars clarifying that the sale of space for advertising would not be taxable under the category of advertising services were primarily meant to save the print media from the burden of tax. In the services of sale of space of time for advertisement, a specific exclusion has been made to this effect. “Sale of space or time for Advertisement Services” was brought into the Service tax net w.e.f. 1-5-2006 only. The disputed period in the instant case is prior to that. Thus, the activity of the appellant during the disputed period is not taxable under Advertising Agency Service and Sale of Space or time for Advertisement Services too.
The CESTAT has recorded finding that there is prima facie finding of suppression of production and clandestine removal. The balance sheets thus will not reflect the true and correct financial position of the company. The Tribunal was lenient enough in directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 1 crore and waiving the remaining amount of Excise duty and penalty, which together with would amount to about Rs. 16 crores. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law for consideration and interference in this appeal. The Central Excise Appeal is accordingly dismissed in-limine.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and taking into account all the contentions raised by the affidavits and reply affidavits, considering the decisions of other High Courts, Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this High Court on the issues raised by the Regional Director and the submissions during the course of hearing, I am satisfied that the observations made by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, do not survive. I have come to the conclusion that the present scheme of arrangement is in the interest of its shareholders and creditors as well as in the public interest and the same deserves to be sanctioned.
In this case, assessee was carrying on business of conversion of Jumbo Rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes. It claimed deduction under secs. 80-HH and 80-I as well as investment allowance under sec. 32AB. The controversy arose whether conversion of jumbo rolls into small sizes amounts to manufacture or production, eligible for deduction under sec. 32AB or deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961/ Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this activity amounts to manufacture or production.
The assessee has explained before us the hierarchy of Sacred Heart Congregation viz., Generalate, Province, Region and Convents. There is no dispute that the applicant herein is a Convent. It was further submitted that the constitution (meaning ‘bye laws’) is the same for all the four hierarchies stated above. It was further submitted that Chapter X of the constitution, referred above, is the authority of services given to the convents. We have gone through the Chapter X of the constitution referred above. We notice that the Chapter X discusses about the formation of new houses, local communities, colonial house, local supervisor, local assembly, local council, service centres etc., and the mode of regulation of the same. In clause 278, which is prescribed under the head “Colonial House”, it is stated as under:-
The question as to whether the business is derived from or attributable to SLR or non-SLR funds would not make any difference for the purposes of qualifying the interest earned by the cooperative bank under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) as the deposits of surplus idle money available from working capital, including reserves, excess collection of interest tax and other incomes are all attributable to the business of banking. The interest from such deposits cannot be said to be beyond the legitimate business activities of the bank.
From the material documents allowed to be produced, the assessee could satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) that the place of effective management of its enterprises was situated at Netherlands and thus, the requirement of condition in Article 8A of DTA agreement was met with. The Tribunal has rightly confirmed the decision of the Appellate Commissioner holding the assessee to be eligible for benefits of DTAA.
As is more than apparent, assessment was completed on scrutiny. In post assessment period, audit party raised the objection and Assessing Officer had strongly objected to such objections by communicating internally as mentioned hereinabove. In such background, reasons for reopening if are noted, they are almost identically worded as that of audit report. No material worth the name emerges to indicate any independent application of mind. Facts are quite glaring on the contrary & they clearly establish absence of subjective satisfaction of Assessing Officer. Thus, the ground raised by the petitioner that such notice of reopening is invalid for the Assessing Officer having not formed his independent belief requires to be sustained.
