Service portion in the execution of a works contract has been declared as service u/s 66E after the introduction of negative list. That means works contract service per se is not a service but it is a service because it has been declared to be a service u/s 66E. Here an attempt has been made to elaborate on the works contract service after the introduction of negative list.
Supreme Court’s judgment in MIL India Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (210) ELT 188 wherein it was held that Parliament had taken away the power of remand from Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by amending Section 35A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 11/05/2001.
Arrangements for operationalisation of Border Haats between India and Bangladesh have been harmonized with addendum dated 15th May, 2012 to the MOU dated 23rd October, 2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question can be treated as parts or accessories of computer system or peripherals. As per clarification by the Commissioner also printer is a part of computer system and peripherals. The printer cannot be operated without inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges and thus the said items can certainly be treated as accessories to the printer.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs number S.O. 804 (E), dated the 11th April, 2012 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India Extra-ordinary dated the 11th April, 2012, namely
Notification No. 94/2012-CUSTOMS (N. T.) Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
GENERAL CIRCULAR NO. 32/2012 In continuation to this Ministry vide circular no. 26/2012, dated 23-8-2012 wherein a Committee has been constituted for Reforming the Regulatory Environment for doing business in India. In this regard, the 1st meeting of the said committee held on 10-10-2012, thereafter it has been decided to include representatives from PSU Banks/from NTPC and BHEL so as to make the Committee more broad based.
This circular is issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11 read with Section 11A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
It is quite clear that the claimant has to show that the burden of excise duty has not been passed on to any other person and not only to the buyers. In this case, the purchaser being the defence organisation of Government of India, the question of passing on the excise duty to any other person does not arise and ordnance depot not being a manufacturer of any goods,
The undisputed fact in the present case remained that the tax on the entire income received by the assessee was required to be deducted at appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195(2) of the Act. Had the payer made the deduction of tax at the appropriate rate, the net tax payable by the assessee would have been Nil. Thus there was no liability to pay advance tax by the assessee.
