Join our webinars on GST Tribunals preparation. Learn to grow your IDT practice and prepare for GSTAT with expert guidance. Register now for ₹899 + GST!
The programme of professional education imparted by the assessee Institute in India is not in the nature of coaching or tuition. The Institute at London is an Institute established by a Royal Charter and recognized world-wide as the nodal agency of design, improving and controlling the profession of ship-broking. Ship-broking is recognised world over as the only profession engaged in dealing with all aspects of shipping industry.
As you may be aware, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its circular number 14/2012 dated 21.06.2012 had imposed fees on Form 23B (Information by auditor to Registrar) w.e.f. 22/07/2012. Subsequently, the Ministry vide its circular number 19/2012 dated 27.07.2012 has extended the last date for filing the Form 23B without fee for two weeks.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide their General Circular No. 18/2012 dated 26th July, 2012 has said that all cost auditors and the concerned companies will be allowed to file their Cost Audit Reports and Compliance Reports for the year 2011-12 [including the overdue reports relating to any previous year(s)] with the Central Government in the XBRL mode, without any penalty, upto 31st December, 2012. For this purpose, it has further said that
In a notification issued by RBI said that promoters of companies seeking debt recast could be allowed to bring in 50 per cent of their sacrifice upfront and the balance within a period of one year. The RBI’s decision follows representation by banks and the Indian Banks’ Association that corporates under stress are finding it difficult to bring in the promoters’ share of sacrifice and additional funds upfront, on some occasions. According to RBI rules, promoters’ sacrifice and additional should be a minimum of 15 per cent of banks’ sacrifice. However, the promoters were required to bring in the funds upfront and not over a period of time.
The Prime Minister has constituted a Committee to Review Taxation of Development Centres and the IT Sector. The Committee will engage in consultations with stakeholders and related government departments to finalise the Safe Harbour provisions announced in Budget 2010 sector-by-sector. It will also suggest the approach to taxation of Development Centres.
Perusal of the show-cause notice indicates that the appellant had realised service tax from his client but did not deposit. The mitigating factors of financial condition and illness could have been received consideration, had the appellant not realised service from its clients. Since service tax was realised and that was with the appellant, keeping such public money the appellant does not require any consideration for total waiver of penalty. Only looking to the cooperative attitude of the appellant, it may not be proper to penalise under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Simultaneously, to remove hardship, it would be proper to direct the appellant to deposit 25% of the demand towards penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 within 30 days of receipt of this order. If there is no deposit, this order shall stand vacated and Revenue shall be free to realise its entire dues in accordance with law.
Counsel submits that service of the courier was used for dispatch of the samples to abroad. When courier service is connected with export and relevancy thereof was not doubted, the appellant cannot be denied relief of credit relating to tax paid for appropriate consequence under different law. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without looking into strength of evidence filed, recorded that the appellant failed to correlate the invoices by the courier services with the export of goods.
Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.
The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the credit is mostly in respect of capital goods only and there is only a small portion of credit attributable to input services. He submits that the portion of Rule 6(3)(c) will apply only in respect of credit taken in respect of inputs and input services and not capital goods. When such credit alone is considered, the utilization is well within the prescribed limit in the said Rule and therefore, demand is not maintainable.
