In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by hundred percent EOU (Export-Oriented Undertaking) when sold in India can be subjected to levy of Education Cess under the Central Excise Act.
An assessee to whom the agreement applies has the option of being subjected to tax as per DTAA or the Income-tax Act 1961, which is more beneficial to it. When section 44D is read in juxtaposition to section 115A, it mandates for putting the amount of royalty and fees for technical services to tax at 20% as against 10% as provided by Article 12 of DTAA. The assessee being a person to whom the agreement applies, has rightly subjected itself to taxation at the reduced rate of 10% as per DTAA.
Whether the assessee is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice of the manufacturer in case additional duty of excise is paid suo motu on receipt of the show cause notice alleging wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules with intent to evade duty invoking proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Act?
