The Supreme Court has stated that the debt recovery appellate tribunal has no power to exempt a defaulter from making a pre-deposit before entertaining his appeal under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. In this case, Narayan Chandra vs UCO Bank, the tribunal granted exemption. The Calcutta high court set aside the order. He appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the high court ruling.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. Chitrahar Traders- The buyer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, a central government undertaking which was sold as scrap, was entitled to pay a lower sales tax, the Supreme Court ruled. It dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the ruling of the Madras high court which stated that the levy should take into account that the machinery was total scrap. Since the plant and machinery had outlived its utility, the government appointed Metal Scrap and Trading Corporation Ltd, a government enterprise, to sell them as scrap. It arranged an e-auction in which Chitrahar Traders bid the highest amount. The revenue department then demanded 12 per cent and surcharge as sales tax stating that what was sold was plant and machinery; not scrap. The buyer contended that only 4 per cent could be levied at the rate stipulated for scrap. In fact, it had to use explosives to remove machinery embedded in earth since 1961 and which became utterly useless by 2001. The high court and the Supreme Court accepted the contention of the scrap buyer.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of New India Assurance Company which had rejected the claim of a ship-breaking firm for compensation. The firm bought a Belgian vessel and was bringing it from Singapore on its ‘funeral voyage’ to Alang port in Gujarat for demolition. It wrecked on way in high seas due to bad weather. The ship was covered by marine insurance and the ship-breaker invoked the policy. The insurer rejected the claim leading to litigation in the consumer forum. The National Consumer Commission asked the insurance company to pay Rs 14 crore with 9 per cent interest to Priya Blue Industries, the scrap dealer in ships. However, the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the loss suffered due to the ship wreck was properly assessed by the surveyors and the commission order was correct.
M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a registered service provider and is a Del credere consignment agent and during the course of advertising and publicizing the product the assessee enlisted the services of a mandap keeper which is an input service. This confirms to the definition of input service as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-3 reported in 2009 (15) STR 657 (Banglore)
CIT V. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (ITA No. 164 of 2008) (Del)- Taxpayer filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31 March 2003 declaring a loss. The due date of filing the return of loss in terms of provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act,1 961 (the Act) was 31 October 2001. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not allow the carry forward of unabsorbed loss including the unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the AO’s order and held that the taxpayer was not allowed to carry forward the losses by virtue of section 80 of the Act. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 2000-0 1 and 2001-02. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the tax authorities filed an appeal before the High Court.
Siddachalam Exports Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA- Duty drawback – goods had been over-valued with the intention of claiming undue draw-back amounts – instead of first determining the value of the goods on the basis of contemporaneous exports of identical goods, the Revenue erroneously resorted to a market enquiry – contemporaneous exports of identical goods was not available, the procedure laid down in Rules 5 to 8 of the 1988 Rules was required to be followed and market enquiry could be conducted only as a last resort – in the absence of any other independent evidence relating to market enquiry, there was no other corroborating evidence to support the allegation of inflation in FOB value – the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
Andhra Bombay Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether when assessee is able to lead evidence to show that not only was there reasonable cause for taking money in cash, but amount did not also represent unaccounted money either of assessee or of persons from whom they were taken, normally that should be sufficient to hold that penalty is not justified – Held, yes
I, however, find that prior to 10/09/2004 collection of cheques / bills etc. was not part of business auxiliary service and scope of customer care service cannot be stretched to cover such collection prior to this date under sub-clause (iii) of definition. Customer care service relates to post sale services rendered to the users / consumers by the service provider who provide this care on behalf of the client. No element of such customer care is present in the activity of collection of bills etc. Further, if collection of chequ
