Recently, the Central Government vide Notification No. 21/2015-ST and 22/2015-ST, both dated November 6, 2015 had appointed November 15, 2015 as the date from which, Swachh Bharat Cess (SB Cess) at the rate of 0.5% on value of all taxable services shall be applicable. However, a sudden imposition of SB Cess created lot of confusions like to calculate value of taxable services under Abatement Notification, treatment of SB Cess on ongoing transactions, availability of Cenvat credit of SB Cess, etc.
CBEC vide various Circulars/Instructions had laid down simplified procedures for sanction and disbursal of refund claims in the past under various notifications. Now, the Board has issued yet another circular in order to facilitate fast track sanction of refund of accumulated Cenvat credit to exporter of services vide Circular No. 187/6/2015-Service Tax dated November 10, 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)]
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is settled law that Sales tax can’t be attracted until effective control is transferred. Since CBUs did not get effective control over the brand name as such, it could not be considered as sale of intangible goods.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that if dealers engaged in the construction and sale of residential apartments, houses, buildings or commercial complexes, exercise an option, and comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 4(7)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and Rule made thereunder
