I-T- Valuation report would only be relevant, when the Valuer has done the valuation in the manner prescribed in 11U and 11UA, because it is in Rule 11 such a condition has been prescribed: ITAT

I-T- Section 40(a)(ia) is not available to the discount given to the distributors: ITAT

I-T-Auditor in the audit report specifies due date as prescribed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and the date on which deposit has been made, then in the computation of income, the same cannot be claimed as deduction, because law envisages that such payment is disallowable as it has not been paid within due date: ITAT

I-T-'Every month' in clause 58 of PFS should be read as month in which wages were actually earned i.e. salary payable: ITAT

I-T- Interest income earned on fixed deposits with cooperative bank/scheduled bank partakes character of business income, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i): ITAT

CX - Department has not carried out thorough investigation of matter even though investigation took two years after audit objection, therefore, allegation of department that appellant manufactured goods in their factory premises and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty cannot sustain: CESTAT

Cus - In absence of any plausible evidence brought in by appellant to contrary, it gets established that gold biscuits were of foreign origin and Department was correct in absolutely confiscating the gold: CESTAT

ST - If benefit can be denied on ground that appellant is not a party to such a proceeding, Adjudication/appellate authority have no reason to consider even date of judgment of Supreme Court on 4.07.2017 as date of commencement of period of limitation since appellant was not party to proceedings before Supreme Court also: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-746-CESTAT-BANG

Encop Wires Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

CX - The issue arises is, whether appellant manufactured and cleared finished goods viz. copper wire without payment of duty from their factory which they claimed to have purchased from M/s. Mech Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vensar Constructions Company Ltd. and traded the same without bringing to their factory - Crux of allegation of Department is that the appellant though claimed to have purchased copper wire from aforesaid two vendors and without bringing the same into their factory, sold it as such to other customers including one of the vendors, but in fact manufactured the said quantity in their factory premises and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty - Basis of allegation is that the descriptions of goods given in respective purchase invoices do not tally with description of goods mentioned in sales invoices - On going through purchase and sales invoices, it is found that though there are some apparent discrepancies/contradictions in description of goods; also contradictions in statements of Transporter and Director vis-à-vis invoices, however, such contradictions cannot itself establish that appellant had received purchased goods in their factory, processed and converted into finished goods cleared without payment of duty - At best, it can raise a suspicion about genuineness of transaction and be ground for further investigation - Department has not carried out thorough investigation of matter even though the investigation took two years after audit objection - Also, intimation letters written by appellant to Range Superintendent from time to time informing the invoice no, vendor's name, quantity of material purchased and received in transporter's premises duly acknowledged by Inspector of Range Office, being not contradicted by Revenue about its genuineness, weighs in favour of appellant - No investigation was carried out after intimation letters were received in Range office even though these were addressed from time to time, much before the audit objection, no verification was carried out - Therefore, it is difficult to accept the allegation of department that the quantity of goods as shown in purchase invoices were brought into the factory, processed, converted into finished goods and removed clandestinely without payment of duty - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2023-TIOL-745-CESTAT-KOL

Jochan Michael Vs CC

Cus - Gold biscuits were seized from appellants when they were being screened at Imphal Airport - If appellants have bought gold through licit channel, they would have carried Invoice copy towards the same, particularly taking into account that value of gold was for Rs.15.7 Lakhs - While they were not in a position to show any document for purchasing these gold biscuits in India, in Recorded statement, appellants have stated that they have travelled to Myanmar and bought the biscuits by way of cash payment - The recorded statements have not been retracted by them at any stage - The Test Report issued by Assam Hallmarking Centre also states that the golds were of 24 Carat with fineness of 998.4 to 998.5 purity - If all these facts are viewed together, it is clear that gold biscuits are of foreign origin only - In absence of any plausible evidence brought in by appellant to contrary, it gets established that gold biscuits were of foreign origin and the Department was correct in absolutely confiscating the gold - Admittedly, Recorded statements did not specify that the same were being recorded in terms of Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - However, appellants are required to support their claim by way of proper Invoices - They were not in a position to prove the same - Therefore, even the error pointed out about Recorded Statement cannot come to the rescue of appellants - Accordingly, confiscation of gold biscuits and wallets are upheld - Considering the value of gold biscuits, penalty imposed on Shri Antony Philip is reduced to 1,00,000/- - Considering the fact that both the Appellants have admitted that owner of gold biscuits is Shri Antony Philip and taking the view that Shri Jochan Michael has acted as a carrier, the Penalty on him stands reduced to 25,000/-: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-744-CESTAT-BANG

Dharmaposhana Company Vs CCT, CE & C

ST - The appellant was providing services under category of ‘Banking & other Financial Services' - Issue relates to taxability of chit fund - As per the judgment dated 14 March, 2018, High court specified that the limitation for filing refund application will be extended for one year from 14.03.2018 - However, Commissioner (A) has not extended the period of limitation on the ground that the appellant was not party to the proceedings pending before High Court - Such finding is unsustainable - If benefit can be denied on the ground that appellant is not a party to such a proceeding, Adjudication/appellate authority have no reason to consider even the date of judgment of Supreme Court on 4.07.2017 as date of commencement of the period of limitation since appellant was not party to proceedings before Supreme Court also - From the records, it is evident that appellant is a Member of All Kerala Chitty Formen's Association who is one of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.32097 of 2007 and revenue had filed an appeal against judgment of Single bench to clarify as to whether the decision of Supreme court in case of Margadarshi Chit Funds 2017-TIOL-240-SC-ST applies to the period post introduction of Negative list in 2012 - Thus, entire issue regarding taxability on chit fund attained finality only as per the judgment dated 14.03.2018 and not w.e.f 04.07.2017 as held by adjudication authority - Considering the guidelines issued by High Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2019 in Petition No.26647 of 2019 and the judgment of Division Bench dated 14.03.2018 , the appellant are eligible to claim the benefit of extended period of limitation for one year from 14.03.2018 - Since there is no other issue raised by Adjudication/Appellate Authority, appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT