The respondent can reverse the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods treating it as undesirable credit to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and pay duty from PLA otherwise payable after exhausting CENVAT Credit balance thereby claiming refund of the same under Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001.
Although Circular has been issued for the purpose of non- seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in Hindu Society. In the circumstances, unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery as stated in the Circular stands explained.
Whether the liability has been deferred or not has to be considered not from the simplistic point of the term ‘defer’ but in context of the incentive scheme for deferral, as is evident from the circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. The subject matter of Circular no.496 dated 25th September, 1987 is Sales Tax Deferral Scheme and applicability of provisions of section 43B of the Act.
A plain reading of Section 76 of the Act indicates that a person who is liable to pay service tax and who has failed to pay such tax is under an obligation to pay, in addition to the tax so payable and interest on such tax, a penalty for such failure. The quantum of penalty has been specified in the provision by laying down the minimum and the maximum limits with a further cap in so far as the maximum limit is concerned.
In the facts of the present case the record indicates that the Director of the respondent has admitted shortage of Grey fabrics as well as illicit clearance thereof without issuance of central excise invoices or any other duty paying documents, without payment of central excise duty and without entering in the Daily Stock Account Register and Lot Register during the months May-2002 and June 2002.
CIT Vs Himgiri Foods Limited (Gujarat High Court)- On a plain reading of section 143(1B) it is apparent that the provision mandates that if after the issuance of intimation, a revised return is furnished by an assessee under sub-section (5) section 139 it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to process the revised return and amend the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a)
The company being an unit located in Kutch District is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 8.7.2001. At the time of removal of the goods from the factory for export, the Company paid duty of excise as is evident from the statutory invoices issued by the Company. The Company accordingly applied for rebate under Rule-18
The present tax appeals have been field by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat -II under sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to raise the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law in reducing the penalty on the respondent from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 20 lakhs ?” 2. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. R.
The petitioners ‘Kutch Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a Voluntary Association of Industrial Units, and other Industrial Units operating in the Kutch District of State of Gujarat, have challenged the Notifications issued by respondent No. 1 bearing No. 16/2008-C.E dated 27.3.2008 as well as Notification No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008 on the ground that they have effect of depriving the petitioners and other similarly situated industries and industrial units, set up pursuant to the Notification No. 39/2001-C.E dated 31.7.2001, providing for the exemption from payment of excise duty for five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, to the newly set up industrial units with specific minimum investments as an incentive to set up new industries in Kutch region after the devastating earthquake.
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed the value of property as per the registered valuer’s report. Therefore, under clause (a) of section 55A, the Assessing Officer was required to form an opinion that the value claimed by the assessee as per the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed by the DVO
