In this writ petition there is a challenge to section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as it purports to levy service tax on the renting of immovable property to be used for commercial / business purposes. This provision has been recently amended by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1-6-2007.
We find that at the time of survey the sample processing was carried out and according to the sample processing, the bi-products consists of chuni, dust, waste, etc. which comes to 8.46% and the books of account reflected the waste and bi-products at 10%. We find from the facts that out of 100 kg. of mug the production of mugdal is 90 kg. and bi-product is 10 kg, which is called `kurma or chuni’. Kurma is bi-product and not a waste or process loss. Kurma is sold in open market and sale proceed has already been credited by the assessee in the books of account. According to the assessee, the actual wast
Merely because the assessee is not required to disclose the particulars of sale and purchase of units in audit report obtained under the Companies Act, it cannot be a bona fide reason or an excuse for not disclosing the same in the statement of accounts or any annexure filed along with the return of income for the purpose of determining the total income under the Act
We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre-deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
Exemption under section 10B-Availability-Return not filed by due date-Proviso to section 10B(1) which provides that no exemption under section 10B shall be allowed if return is not furnished by due date prescribed under section 139(1) is directory and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, in genuine cases exemption under section 10B may be allowed even if the return is not filed by the due date mentioned in section 139(1)
We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes.
Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs Stoneman Marble Industries and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) – Apex Court do find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the aforenoted provisions of the Act and each case has to be examined on its own facts but when a final fact finding body returns a finding that the facts obtaining in each of the cases before it are similar, and such finding is not questioned, levy of redemption fine or penalty uniformly in all such cases cannot be construed as laying down an absolute formula, which is the case here. We are convinced that the Revenue did not discharge its burden under Section 130A of the Act in as much as it did not specifically challenge the Revenue’s aforestated finding as being perverse. In this view of the matter, the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act.
Though a judgement of a non-jurisdictional High Court prevails over a judgement of the Special Bench, the former cannot be followed, even though it is the only High Court judgement on the point, if “rendered without having been informed about certain statutory provisions that are directly relevant“.
This Court has upheld the conclusion of the Tribunal that the physician’s samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis. The Tribunal, while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut vs. Trinity Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2005 (188) ELT 48, which has been accepted by the department. Therefore, we hold that physician samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis for the relevant period.
Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.
