Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
The appellant challenged the charges particularly by showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt, Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details, which were not disputed by the lower authorities.
The appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact of which the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an inquiry as the high court cannot entertain an appeal which involves only factual issue.
The appellant does not even undertake any loading operation. The primary job of the appellant, as per the contract between the appellant and the Ambuja companies, is of supervising and liasioning with the coal company
In other words, before 01.06.2015, the assessing authority could pass a separate order under Section 234E levying fee for delay in filing the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. However, after 01.06.2015, the assessing authority is well within his limit to levy fee under Section 234E of the Act even while processing the statement under Section 200A and making adjustment.
F.No.310/03/2015-OT Devise and pursue region specific strategies for identification and pursuing potential taxpayers -Professionals, Businesses, Employees. Conduct meetings with Professional bodies and trade associations. Work with DIT(I&CI) to collect potential information
Notification No. 36/2015-Central Excise, Dated: July 17, 2015 If the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs or capital goods on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs or capital goods has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods) under rule 3 or rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
The Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued detailed guidelines in 2009 to its field formations on conducting detailed manual scrutiny of service tax returns. In view of the legal changes brought about by the Negative List based taxation of services and administrative changes like creation of separate Commissionrates for Audit etc, these guidelines […]
Notification No. 35/2015-Central Excise, Dated: July 17, 2015 Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs or by utilising input services on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or service tax under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs or service tax on input services has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods), under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
Notification No. 34/2015-Central Excise, Dated: June 17, 2015 Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods), under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
In the case of M/s.A.B.Agencies Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by Kerala High Court that a CHA cannot be absolved of his lapse of supervision and misconduct of his employees attracting Clause 19 of the Regulations warranting action against him under Regulation 20.
