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.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi also relied upon the decision in the Metric Solution case and held that Cenvat credit in respect of inputs/ input services received by an output service provider during the period prior to his obtaining Service tax registration is admissible and denial of Cenvat credit on this ground is not correct.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that there is no dispute as to the fact that amount lying in balance in the Cenvat credit account of the Appellant. Further, it was noted that refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit does not fall under any of the rules and that there are no express or implicit provisions in the Excise Act and the Credit Rules for grant of refund of Cenvat Credit balance lying unutilized at the time of closure of the unit.
For the purpose of availing Cenvat credit, there is no requirement that the Service tax should have been deposited by the service provider before the availment of the credit. In terms of Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the Service tax paid or payable as is indicated in the invoice.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that in terms of agreement, principals were required to maintain godown and hence, principals were liable to pay godown rent and the Appellant acted only as their agent. Similarly, bills of labour contractors for arranging loading and unloading and bills of transporters were in name of principals and not in name of assessee. Hence, payment against these bills was made by the Appellant acting as pure agent on behalf of principal. Therefore, these expenses would not be includible in assessable value.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Respondent could claim the Cenvat credit in case of the defective Products returned and it cannot be denied merely due to the fact that the refund of the duty paid on the finished goods which have been returned being defective hasn’t been claimed under erstwhile Rule 173L of the Rules.
In the instant case, Reiter India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) imported a consignment of Textile Machinery parts vide invoice no. 3506445/2000 dated May 10, 2011 valued at 997740.24 CHF vide Bill of Entry no. 3610581 dated May 25, 2011.
