Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Anita Synthetics Private Limited [2014 (9) TMI 368 – Gujarat High Court] Anita Synthetics Private Limited (The Respondent) is a 100% EOU and made clearance of goods to another 100% EOU. Such clearance is treated as a deemed export as mentioned in the EXIM Policy. Therefore, the Respondent […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chandresh C. Shah [(2014) 48 taxmann. com 236 (Gujarat)] In the instant case, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against Doshion Ltd. (the Company) for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty thereon. Further, personal penalty was also imposed against authorized signatory/ managers of […]
Unjust Enrichment not applicable on refund of Service tax paid when no services are received under reverse charge and payment thereof had been adjusted between associated enterprises Wolters Kluwer India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 97 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Wolters Kluwer India Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into an agreement […]
Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [TS368-Tribunal-2014(DEL)] The head office of Moser Bear India Ltd. (the Appellant), located at Delhi is registered as an input service distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules). The head office was discharging Service tax liability under Reverse Charge for […]
It is relevant to note that penalty under Section 86(15) of the DVAT Act, 2004 (“the DVAT Act”) is leviable for preparation of false, misleading and deceptive books and accounts. A clarification has been issued vide Circular 12/2014-15 dated September 11, 2014 that if tax deficiency arose due to false, maintenance of books and accounts […]
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. & Others [2014-TIOL-1411-HC-MAD-CUS] In the instant case, the issue was whether demurrage charges and despatch money is required to be included in the assessable value of goods. The Hon’ble Tribunal relied upon a Larger Bench decision in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. CC, Calcutta [2000 (122) ELT […]
The Delhi Value Added Tax Department has issued Circular No. 11 of 2014-15 dated September 8, 2014 (the Circular) to clarify reversal of Input Tax Credit in respect of Credit Note (CN) or Debit Note (DN) issued in relation to discounts. In terms of Section 10(1) of the DVAT Act, 2004 (the DVAT Act) where […]
The Hon’ble CESTAT relied on the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2009 (248) ELT 826 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat inCCE Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2011 (21) STR 367 (Guj.)] wherein it was held that the refund filed with the Department, though with the wrong authority has to be treated as having been filed on the first date.
Amalgamated Company would be eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit lying in the books of Amalgamating Company when all the facts were intimated to the Department, even though it isn’t in the prescribed form IPF Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 362 (New Delhi – CESTAT)]
The high court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the entire import was made at the instance of the group companies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be barred from transferring the rights in property unless the revenue provides sufficient evidence that the entire import was at the instance of the group companies and the petitioner was involved in it.
