CIT Vs M/s Anantha Gas Suppliers (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In the absence of any ambiguity, we have to take into consideration the plain language of the statutory provision and the obvious intention of the Legislature in using such a plain language. The Legislature merely said ‘gas cylinders including valves and regulators’, it has not spelt out any qualification as to the size of the gas cylinder so as to entitle to claim depreciation @ 100%. The decisive factor being the language employed in the statutory provision, we are unable to accede to the view that on account of the container which is in fact a cylinder being mounted on the chassis of the truck, the entire item has to be treated as transport vehicle for which the depreciation can be claimed at 40%.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as ‘trading goods’ without payment of duty. the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 03-02-1998 in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The show cause notice dated 29.3.2000 was time barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal.
Items used in the manufacture of capital goods and parts thereof and are eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Union of India[1], notwithstanding, we are now called upon, in this batch of Writ Petitions, to adjudicate on the jurisdiction of the revisional/ appellate/ assessing authorities to levy tax under Section 4(1) and (8) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on SIM cards – pre-paid and post-paid; recharge coupons; value added services; telephone instruments, mobile handsets, modems and caller ID instruments; mobile telephone rentals; sharing of infrastructure; non-refundable deposits; refundable deposits etc.
Applications for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand; Three aspects to be focused while dealing with the applications for dispensing of pre-deposit are: (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience, and (c) irreparable loss;
The Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 01-01-2008 issued by the 1st respondent is in challenge. On a true and fair construction of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules, it is clear that where in respect of a works contract service tax has been paid, no option to pay service tax under the composition scheme could be exercised. There is no ambiguity in this provision. The entitlement to avail the benefits of the composition scheme is only after an option is exercised under Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules and this provision specifically enjoins a disqualification for exercise of such option where service tax had been paid in respect of a works contract. To put it succinctly, where service tax has been paid in respect of a works contract, the eligibility to exercise an option to avail the benefits of the composition scheme under the 2007 Rules is excluded.
TRENT Ltd and Future Value Retail Ltd have challenged before the AP High Court, the service tax with retrospective effect on renting of immovable property, brought in by the Finance Act, 2010.
Bench enumerated the following principles to be kept in mind while considering the applications for stay or waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act. 1) The applications for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand;
