Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that duty relating to removals during a month can be discharged within five days of the following month. In case of a manufacturer availing an exemption based on value of clearances during a financial year, the duty for a month may be discharged by fifteenth day of the succeeding month except that for month of March, the duty has to be discharged by 31st March in both the circumstances.
Powers of the C.B.E.C. to issue orders of classification of goods, Value under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Transaction Value, Salient features of the new valuation rules, aluation of goods manufactured on lob-work basis, Clarification issued on Levy of excise duty on readymade garments on the basis of Retail Sale Price (RSP), Value on basis of Maximum Retail Sale Price, Clarifications regarding Section 4A of the Central Excise Act,
The expressions ‘assessment’ and ‘assessee’ have been defined in the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). ‘Assessment’ includes self-assessment of duty made by the assessee and provisional assessment under rule 7 of the said Rules. ‘Assessee’ means any person who is liable for payment of duty assessed or a producer or manufacturer of excisable goods or a registered person of a private warehouse in which excisable goods are stored and includes an authorized agent of such person.
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
Legal Provisions, Persons Requiring Registration, Exemption from Registration, Important changes in the Registration procedure, changes in Format of Application for Registration, Components of 15 digit based Registration Number, Procedure for application for Central Excise Registration and grant of Registration Certificate, New Central Excise Registration Procedure for Powerloom weavers/Hand Processors/Dealers of Yarns and Fabrics/Manufacturers of Ready Made Garments, Procedure for application for Central Excise Registration and allotment of Registration Number for EOUs and EPZ units, Verification, Records, Procedure for existing Registrants, Procedure for Amendment of the information , Conditions, safeguards and procedures for registration
The Synodical Board of Health Services Vs DGIT (Delhi HC)-It was held that the principle of res judicata does not apply and for each period the question of grant of exemption has to be examined separately. The competent authority in the said case had brought on record evidence to show that the records and accounts were not properly maintained and were obviously subjected to manipulation which was decipherable.
ACIT Vs. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that the sharing of net revenues (i.e., amounts billed to customers less third party costs) in a 5o:5o ratio between the origin and destination companies in a consistent manner in controlled as well as uncontrolled transactions, constitutes a comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the 5o:5o model is a common industry practice.
Punjab VAT Tribunal is a very important case namely Baba Ji Rice Mills, vs. State of Punjab (2012) 41 PHT 197 (PVT) has held that once the case is hit by point of limitation,payment of 25% of the additional demand not essentially to be adjudicated. It is notable here that as per section 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 prior payment of 25% of additional demand is mandatory before any appeal is being heard.
DDIT Vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc (ITAT Delhi)- ITAT held that the taxpayer’s agents in India were independent agents under Article 5(5) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, there was no Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the taxpayer in India. Further, the Tribunal observed that the taxpayer did not have right to enter and make use of the premises of the agents for its business. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no fixed place PE of the taxpayer in India as per Article 5(1) of the tax treaty.
Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The undisputed fact is that there are no fresh loans or investments during the year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) laid down that when the Revenue cannot point out as to how interest on borrowed funds was attributable to the earning of dividend income which was exempt under section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood)’ no disallowance can be made.
