Amendment of rule 7- For the purposes of sub-section (10) of section 9 and sub-section (3) of section 10, in case of cigarettes (irrespective of form and length), the tax credit shall be reduced by {(R-2) I00/R} percents, where R is the rate of tax applicable as per section 4.
In his Budget Speech 2014¬-15, the Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley had announced the setting-up of a High Level Committee (HLC) to interact with trade and industry and ascertain areas where clarity on tax laws is required. Accordingly, a High Level Committee (HLC) was constituted with the approval of the Finance Minister on 26th November, 2014 to interact with trade and industry on tax laws,
In the case of National Petroleum Construction Company Vs. DIT in ITA Nos. 143, 144, 533/2013 and 795/2014, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order dt. 13.08.2015, dt. 20.08.2015 and 28.09.2015 has directed the Income Tax Department to formulate and implement a standard operating procedure on the following three issues:
No.F.3(315)/Policy/VAT/2015/ 1003-1014 Dated:12/11/2015 Extend the last date for filing of online returns for the 1st and 2nd quarter of the year 2015-16, in Forms EC-II and EC-III to 30/11/2015.
High Court held that credit of duty paid by job-worker can be availed by the principal manufacturer, even if job-worker forgoes exemption and pay duty on semi-processed goods returned to the principal-manufacturer.
Supreme Court held that the advance of Rs. 4.5 Crores was given by Nestle to the Respondent for purchase of machinery and it was only a loan transaction independent of the trading relationship between the parties
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that invoices, on the basis of which Cenvat credit was availed was issued by manufacturer-supplier and the Appellant’s name is clearly appearing as consignee, therefore the invoices in question are squarely covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Credit Rules.
The Hon’ble CESTAT Mumbai held that since the exempted goods were brought back into the factory after testing and subsequently, exported under Bond, therefore, by virtue of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Credit Rules, the provisions of sub-rule (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) of Rule 6 are inapplicable.
That at the time of import, the required Certificate was not produced is not a very strong ground for denying the benefit of Exemption Notification; There is a plethora of decisions in which various Courts and Tribunals have accepted the production of Certificate even after the importation for granting benefits;
Online service providers like ‘Flipkart’ facilitating sale and purchase of goods through online portals cannot be considered as dealer of goods – Not liable for VAT. Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 387 (Kerala)]
