Method of computation of value U/R 6(3A) of the Credit Rules in respect of Input services used for trading cannot be applied for period prior to April 1,2011 – Value to be calculated on proportionate turnover basis. Synise Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2015-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-MUM]
he Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that Rule 3 and 4 of the Credit Rules provide that any Input or Capital goods received in the factory or any Input service received by manufacturer of final product would be susceptible to Cenvat credit.
The Uttar Pradesh State Government vide the Notification No. K.A. NI-2-729/XI-9(235)12-U.P. Act-5-2008-Order-(133)-2015 dated June 1, 2015 amended Entry 52 of the Schedule – I of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax ACT, 2008 (the UP Vat Act) and exempted all kinds of Footwear including hawai chappals and straps thereof with Maximum Retail Price (the MRP) not exceeding rupees Rs. 300/- per pair subject to the condition that the MRP is indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself.
Tax calendar for the month of June, 2015 Due Date Period Event Form Return under the Central Excise Act, 1944 10-June-15 May -2015 Excise Return by Non SSI Unit ER-1 10-June-15 May -2015 Excise Return by EOUs ER-2 10-June-15 May -2015 Excise Return by Units paying duty more than Rs. 1 Crore (CENVAT + PLA) […]
Pre-condition for invoking the extended period is that the Commissioner should record ‘reasons to believe’ that the tax has not been paid and that the reason for non-payment of tax should be concealment, omission or failure to disclose full material particulars on the part of the assessee.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that imposition of fine under Section 70(5) of the DVAT Act is for an offence as defined under Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which shall be tried by the Hon’ble Court of criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Commissioner or its delegates do not have power or jurisdiction to impose such fine.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the Appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said Assessment Order and consequently, filling of any appeal would not arise. Accordingly, the Appellant is entitled for refund.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not case of wilful misstatement, since all the facts and manner were disclosed in letter addressed to the Department. Hence, extended period could not be invoked.
No reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs in case of slump sale of on-going factory along with raw materials, packing materials etc., as there is no removal from factory.
In the instant case, Sanjay Industrial Corporation (the Appellant) was engaged in profile cutting viz. cutting larger size plates into small size and shapes using gas cutting machines, as per requirements of customers. The Department invoked extended period of limitation alleging that the process carried out by Appellant amount to manufacture and thus exigible to Excise duty.
