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.
MCA issues Seventh Order for removal of difficulties which relates to appointment of auditors in Partly Government Companies The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has come out with the Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Seventh Order, 2014 dated September 4, 2014 in order to remove difficulties relating to appointment of auditors in partly Government Companies.
The Hon’ble High Court held that once order to pay duty was set aside, the refund is automatic. Refusal of refund on the basis that the exigibility of tax is yet to be adjudicated was not a valid reason. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Multiplex Fertilizers (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 359 (High Court of Karnataka)]
Accordingly, it was held that the manufacturer or exporter is not barred from seeking a determination of the Brand Rate of drawback under Rule 7 merely because, at the time of export, the Petitioner had applied for and granted drawback at All Industry Rate as determined under Rule 3.
