Claiming issuance of writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arya to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the office of Associate Professor (Pathology) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner herein Kamlesh Shukla has filed this writ petition.
Input services not only cover services of falling in the substantial part of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but also cover services which are covered under the inclusive part as the same having some sort of nexus with the business activity of the assesses.
The appellants are Export Oriented Unit (EOU). In 2003 they cleared the certain consignments of fabrics for purpose of export, which got damaged due to rain and had to be brought back to the factory.
Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Precision Metals vs. CCEx held that as per the special procedure prescribed in Notification no. 214/86 job worker can get duty exemption in respect of job worked goods cleared to principal manufacturer but this exemption donot make the goods as exempt from duty because ultimately duty got paid at the principal manufacturer send
In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
It was held that when goods are cleared to the customers at a discount, the assessable value for the purpose of assessment should be the value arrived at after giving the quantity discount and not the value at which the goods were cleared from factory to depot.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that when there is no allegation regarding fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act , then imposition of penalty by the department is wrong and illegal.
The Hon’ble MP High court in the above stated case placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr.
