SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Sale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveysST - Since Department itself admits that service carried out by appellant is that of 'Mining Services' w.e.f. 01.06.2007, thus demand for earlier period has been made only to fasten excess Service Tax demand on appellant which cannot sustain: CESTATICG rescues fisherman with head injury onboard IFB St. Francis off the Gujarat coastCX - When physical stock verification carried out by Officers was not fool proof and there were anomalies, benefit of doubt should be extended to assessee, duty demand confirmed on alleged clandestine removal is not sustainable: CESTAT
 
CX - Claim of cum-duty benefit - New ground which applicant is seeking to raise for first time cannot be raised at stage of Tribunal as ground is not purely legal in nature - MA dismissed: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 25, 2016: IN relation to the appeals filed by them against the orders passed by the Commissioner (A), Pune, the appellant has filed miscellaneous applications seeking permission of the Tribunal to raise the additional ground not set forth in the appeal.

The additional ground that the applicant wants to insert is -

"Without prejudice to the other submission made in the appeals, it is submitted that the applicant has not recovered and duty from the customers. Therefore, the sale price of the resultant materials should be treated as cum duty price".

In support of this additional ground, the applicant referred to the definition of s.4 and the Explanation to Section 4 of the CEA, 1944. They also rely on letter D.O F.No. 384/1/2003-TRU dated 28.2.2003 and the decisions in Sri Chakra Tyres [ 2002-TIOL-51-SC-CX-LB ], Indian Plastic Industries 2007-TIOL-688-CESTAT-AHM, Reliance Industrial Products 2010-TIOL-1733-CESTAT-AHM, SC Products 2007-TIOL-1808-CESTAT-DEL & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 2002-TIOL-49-SC-CX.

Inasmuch as it is their submission that the duty calculation should be made considering invoice value as cum-duty price and the demand confirmed should be re-calculated.

The AR submitted that since the grounds proposed for addition in the appeals are involving mixed question of fact and law and more of fact, the fact necessary to support the legal plea was never raised at time of filing reply to SCN or before the appellate authorities earlier, without which legal pleas cannot stand. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support viz. Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. 2015-TIOL-85-SC-CX, Special Tools (P) Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2157-HC-ALL-CX, Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. 2008-TIOL-2071-CESTAT-MAD & Hindustan Organic Chem. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-265-CESTAT-MUM.

The Bench extracted the following paragraph 3 from the apex Court decision in CCE vs. Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. 2015-TIOL-85-SC-CX where it is observed -

"3. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department, has argued, and rightly so, that the issue as to whether the product is marketable or not was not even raised by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice nor was it argued before the Commissioner and therefore on that ground the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal".

Thereafter, the CESTAT observed -

"5.1 We find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above is applicable in the facts of the present case and in our considered opinion, the new ground which the applicant is seeking to raise cannot be raised at this stage as the ground is not purely legal in nature. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the applications moved by the applicant/appellant and we dismiss the same…."

The appeal was posted for hearing on 29.01.2016.

In passing : Also see 2005-TIOL-155-SC-CX-LB.

(See 2016-TIOL-250-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST