The Advisory No. 1 was issued vide OM dated 4.6.2018 in respect of GST Refunds which are sanctioned by the field CGST Commissionerates and are processed manually for payment by the field Pay & accounts Offices through PFMS Portal. Certain practical difficulties have been reported to be faced by the field Commissionerates in respect of GST Refunds especially in the matter of sanctions issued by the State Tax Authorities.
As the sale of starter kits/sim cards is purely a purchase/sale transaction on principal-to-principal basis and there is no relationship of agency, hence no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have deducted tax at source under Sec. 194H in respect of the discounts given to the distributors on the sale of the same.
Refund of IGST on export of goods on payment of duty-Clarification in case of SB003 errors and extension of date in SB005 & other cases using officer Interface for rectification of errors vide Circular No. 22/2018-Customs dated 18th July, 2018
CBIC decided to set up Help Desks at the offices of FIEO and AEPC for expeditious resolution of IGST refund related issues vide Circular 21/2018-Customs dated 18th July 2018.
The present appal is filed against the of Order-in-Original No. DEL-SVTAX-ADJ-COM-48-53-13-14 dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Adj.), New Delhi. The period of dispute is from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has adjudicated the demand raised in six show cause notices issued by various parties. The total service tax demand upheld vide the impugned order is Rs. 4,05,97,745/- alongwith interest and penalties. The following table indicates the demand of service tax made under the different services.
M/s. Sail Refractory Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Bonus and penalty are post-sales provisions, therefore excise duty cannot be levied on such payments which are based on performance post-sales / clearance of the goods. Above issue is covered by the judgment in the case of Vishwakarma Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. […]
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Transformer oil, Petroleum jelly and light liquid paraffin and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on various input services. During the disputed period, they had availed credit of service tax paid on courier services for sending the samples of their products to buyers in foreign countries. The department was of the view that these are export of goods as the courier services is akin to outward transportation of finished goods from factory gate to the customer’s premises and therefore is not eligible for credit
Applicant imports various goods/spares, which are supplied on ships and these equipment form an essential part of the ship, and makes the ship sea worthy.
The companies which produce products covered under excise even after July 1st, 2017 will continue to furnish the information in the same format provided by the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Amendment Rules, 2017. The companies having their products or services covered under GST may follow the guidance provided in this advisory.
There is no provision u/s.44BB to support the Assessing Officer’s interpretation of the so called ‘second leg contract’ so as to deny the applicability of the section to the assessee. Only requirement of the section is plant and machinery is given on hire is used or to be used in the prospecting /extraction/production of mineral oil. Thus the learned DRP upheld the applicability of Section 44BB.
