Jyoti Electronics (the Respondent) purchased certain goods after payment of Input Tax credit. Thereafter, manufacturer of the goods granted trade discount on the goods purchased during the Assessment Year 2008-09 of an amount of Rs.9,60,183/-.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act would get attracted and goods may be liable for confiscation when value of goods in invoices is exaggerated. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Vs. G.P. Jaiswal [2015 (57) Taxman 295 – SC]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since CT-3 certificates were filed before the Department, no clearance could have taken place without the knowledge of the officer as to the ultimate destination of the goods and the fact that they were cleared without payment of duty in terms of the exemption notification, which was specified in the application.
Excess credit reversed by assessee under protest in course of investigation, for which no SCN has been issued, cannot be retained by Department -Refund thereof is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. Finolex Industries Ltd. [2015 (57) Taxman 153 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
Import freight/ charges etc., which are incurred prior to import or which are included in Customs valuation, cannot be charged to Service tax under Cargo Handling or any other service. United Shippers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II [2015 (57) Taxman 429 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
Service tax burden can be transferred by contractual arrangement to the other party but, the assessee cannot ask the Revenue to wait for discharge of the liability till it has recovered the amount from its contractors. Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner Service Tax [2015-TIOL-961-HC-DEL-ST]
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) […]
