We have uploaded below ITR 1- Sahaj, ITR 2, ITR 3, ITR-4, SUGAM (ITR-4S), ITR 5, ITR-6 and ITR-7 in Pdf Format applicable for Assessment year 2011-12 and Financial Year 2010-11. In addition to these we have also uploaded ITR 2, ITR 3, ITR-4 and ITR 5, ITR 6 and ITR 7 in Word Format. We will soon upload all the ITR and acknowledgement in Excel Format also.
Even before the PoTR, 2011 see the light of the day, a major surgery was carried out wherein the whole focus for the events determining PoT was shifted to issue of invoice. Notification No. 25/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 made many changes in the PoTR making it necessary for the SP to sit down and re-do the whole exercise once again. As if the confusions were not enough, Notification No. 26/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 added few more. This analysis incorporates these amendments. CBEC has been silent on the objectives of making so many amendments so frequently. In order to get the clear picture and deciphering the objectives, an attempt has been made here to analyse Draft PoTR of August, 2010, PoTR before amendment and PoTR after Notification No. 25/2011 together.
The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
Addressing concerns of garment manufacturers, the Central Board of Customs and Excise today said effective rate of excise on branded apparel is only 4.50 per cent and small manufacturers are exempted from the levy. “Manufacturers having a turnover of Rs four crore are eligible for SSI (small scale industry) exemption from central excise duty for clearance up to Rs 1.5 crore, “the CBEC said in a public notice.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
SC rejects claim of firms using HSD in captive units- The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a batch of appeals by various companies claiming credit of duty paid on high speed diesel oil used in their captive electricity generating plants. The Rajasthan high court had earlier rejected their contention in the case, Sangam Spinners Ltd vs Union of India. Their argument was that they had acquired accrued and vested right and it could not be taken away retrospectively by an Act of Parliament, in this case, the Finance Act, 2000. Since the companies were unable to pass on the burden to the customers, they would have to bear the entire burden themselves, and that too retrospectively, and therefore such a provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality). The revenue authorities, on the other hand, contended that the 2000 Act was not a validating Act, but explanatory in nature in order to clarify and put in proper perspective the legal position as some tribunals had misinterpreted departmental notifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent changes made by Parliament were clarificatory and the companies were not entitled to the credit of duty.
Section 39 of Punjab VAT Act 2005 deals with refund of tax. Some welcome changes have been made in said section by adding a new sub section 1-A to the said section which provides for provisional allowing of 75% of amount of refund claimed under PVAT Act subject to furnishing of indemnity bond in prescribed format and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
In respect of levy of excise duty @ 1% on jewellery and other articles of precious metals which bear or are sold under a brand name, the provisions of Rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules and Rules 2 & 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as amended by Notification Nos. 8/2011-Central Excise (N.T.) and 9/2011-Central Excise (N.T.) both, dated 24th March, 2011 may kindly be referred to. As in the case of branded garments, in case of goods falling under Chapter heading 7113 and 7114 also, where a brand owner gets jewellery or articles other than jewellery made from any other person, and supplies the raw materials such as gold/ silver/ gemstones etc. (of Chapter 71) to the job-worker for such manufacture, the duty liability would be on such person who gets jewellery or articles made from the job worker, unless the job worker opts to discharge the duty liability. However, a person manufacturing jewellery of heading 7113 or articles of heading 7114 bearing a brand name or sold under a brand name on his own account will be liable to pay excise duty unless he claims benefit of the SSI exemption.
Levy of 1% Excise Duty without Cenvat Credit on 130 items: 1 The following changes have been made with respect to levy of 1% excise duty on 130 items which were fully exempt till 1st March 2011: (i) Out of the 130 items covered under Notification 1/2011-CE, dated 1-3-2011, 35 items have been notified under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with an abatement of 35%. Notification No. 11/2011-CE (NT), dated 24th March, 2011 refers. The excise duty (and CVD) on these goods will thus be charged on the assessable value determined under section 4A.
