Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
The grievance of the revenue is that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income. The Tribunal held that the time to file a revised return had expired. In any event, it is not disputed that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In that view of the matter, imposition of penalty was not warranted.
Exemptions (A) The following exemptions are being rationalized: * Rationalization of exemption limit prescribed for charitable organizations, providing service towards any other object of general public utility. So far, the limit was 25 Lakh Rupees per annum. Now, they will be covered by the threshold exemption. * Exemption provided to restaurants other than those having […]
CHANGES IN MEGA EXEMPTION LIST W.E.F APRIL 1, 2013 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 3/2013-ST DATED. 1-3-2013 AMENDING NOTIFICATION NO. 25/2012-ST DATED. 20-6-2012: • Under S. No. 9 – Exemption by way of auxiliary educational services and renting of immovable property provided by specified educational institutes will not be available i.e. Exemption of auxiliary educational services and […]
The order impugned before the Commissioner was received by the appellant on 04.09.2010 and the appeal was filed on 11.08.2011. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there is no provision under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone the delay beyond the period of three months on expiry of the limitation period.
It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Association are authorized by the port authorities constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to provide such services. It is also not in dispute that without such authorization, such services could not be rendered by them. In fact, the petitioners have produced on record, a licence issued by port authorities authorizing the petitioners to provide such services.
On going through the said record we find that the Additional Director General, in his proceedings/orders dated 15-2-2011 has recorded that on the basis of the various searches conducted at various premises of manufacturers, godowns and dealers of various cigarette manufacturers in the country, different brands of cigarettes which were kept without any duty paying documents were seized. Huge stock of cigarettes of various brands manufactured by the petitioner without any duty paying documents were also found during the searches at Coimbatore etc. and were placed under seizure. In view of seizures of non-duty paid cigarette manufactured by the petitioner, a decision was taken to search the petitioner’s premises immediately to resume incriminating records.
We have perused the balance sheet of the company placed on record. Year after year company continued to incur huge loss. Balance sheet suggests that there is no manufacturing or other activity being undertaken by the company and with each successive year, accumulated loss swell. In fact net profit of the company is in negative since long. All these would demonstrate that the petitioners have no means of fulfilling the pre-deposit condition.
Counsel for the respondent is right in relying on sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 35EE to point out that in case the Central Government suo motu decides to issue notice to the assessee to enhance the penalty or fine or duty and after hearing the assessee decides to drop the proceedings, no grant of any opportunity to the Commissioner of Central Excise or any other officer executing the Act is envisaged.
The disputed issue relating to inclusion of cost of materials used for providing photographic services, which stands decided against the appellant by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System v. CCE [2011] 33 STT 33.
The issue in the present case is whether service tax paid on ‘rent-a-cab service’ for transportation of staff from Vashi railway station to the container freight station run by the appellant is an eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the Rule or not. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Bell Ceramics Ltd. (supra) has held that these services are eligible input service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and CENVAT Credit o the service tax paid thereon is available.
