As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the refund claim ought to be filed within a period of one year from the payment of service tax by the person claiming the refund as per the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. From the records it is seen that the appellant had paid the service tax on 24/10/2008, and the refund claim was filed on 28/01/2010 i.e. after a lapse of one year from the date of payment of tax. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim on account of time bar is sustainable in law.
Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No. 37/2011- Cus., dated 23.08.2011 which gives details on the ‘Authorized Economic Operator’ (AEO) Programme . The said Circular contains the salient features of the AEO Programme including the processing, validations and certification of AEOs. It also indicated Board’s decision to initially begin a pilot before finalizing the AEO Programme for a full scale roll out. Accordingly applications were invited for participation in the Pilot AEO Programme, which has since been completed.
Thus, it has been held that the accumulated profits do not include current year’s business profit, since it accrues only at the end of the year. Further the loan or advance treated as deemed income up to the date of fresh loan is to be reduced from the accumulated profits. Consistent with the view taken by the Ahmedabad bench in the above said case, we also hold so.
Tribunal held that in the absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees which has been declared by him in the P&L account and when the professional income declared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned.
Notification No. 99/2012 – Customs (N.T.) Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 17th November, 2012 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods.
Under Section 220(6) of the Act, where an appeal was pending against the assessment order, the assessee was not to be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the amount in dispute in appeal, in the discretion of the Assessing Officer on such conditions as he may think fit to impose. The Assessing Officer is, thus, required to pass a reasoned speaking order.
Circular No. 28/2012-Customs – Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No. 37/2011- Cus., dated 23.08.2011 which gives details on the ‘Authorized Economic Operator’ ( AEO) Programme . The said Circular contains the salient features of the AEO Programme including the processing, validations and certification of AEOs. It also indicated Board’s decision to initially begin a pilot before finalizing the AEO Programme for a full scale roll out. Accordingly applications were invited for participation in the Pilot AEO Programme, which has since been completed.
We have carefully gone through sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction under that section is allowed in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee. Hence, the condition for allowing any deduction is the creation of any provision for bad and doubtful debts, which can only be created in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the sum of Rs.32,72,731/- without making any provision as stated in sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the same.
Existing arrangements for import/export of commodities/items under Indo Myanmar Border have been revised; and ii. 22 new commodities/items have been added to the existing list of 40 tradable items and all the 62 commodities/items consolidated.
