Perusal of para 2.4.2 of CBEC’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions shows that there is no legal bar to the utilisation of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services. Apart from the above, even as per Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service.
The Reserve Bank today asked non- banking financial companies (NBFCs) to replace post-dated cheques issued to them by customers with new standardised cheques with improved security features.
Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and on facts come to the conclusion that the profits earned by Kandla division of the respondent-assessee is not abnormally high due to any arrangement between the respondent-assessee and its German Principal. The Tribunal correctly held that extraordinary profits cannot lead to the conclusion that this is an arrangement between the parties.
After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
However, in the case of a non-competition agreement or covenant, the advantage is a restricted one, in point of time. It does not necessarily – and not in the facts of this case, confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity.
Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself.
In the present case, both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. Under the circumstances, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.
