Appellant had supplied the tool kit as per statutory requirements under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as accessories to be used in relation to the manufacture of vehicle. Thus, ‘tool kit’ in our view is squarely covered by the definition of ‘input’ given under Rule 2(k)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules and that the appellant had rightly availed the Cenvat credit in relation to tool kits. I
In the present case the notice to show cause under Section 124 was not issued to the Petitioner. The order of adjudication dated 20 September 2007 was similarly not in respect of the Petitioner. The certificates that were issued under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) on 19 March 2010 were in the names of (i) Mehul Exports of which the proprietor is Nirmal Agawal, the spouse of the Petitioner; (ii) Nisum Exports and Finance Private Limited of which the director is stated to be Nirmal Agawal in the certificate; and (iii) Nisum Global Limited of which again the director is stated to be Nirmal Agawal.
Despite filing of the stay application, the direction for recovery makes it mandatory for the authority to recover the amount within a period of 30 days after the filing of the appeal even if there is a stay application pending and has not been disposed of. The plea taken is that the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act does not specify any time limit. In such view of the matter, it is pleaded that the circular overreaches the provisions.
As regards investment made in thandal business, there are no materials seized at the time of search of the assessee’s premises, to make this as a subject matter of block assessment. When the revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had been doing the business along with two others, there was no justifiable ground to assess Rs. 27 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.
On going through the records, we find that the issues that were raised were not discussed and dealt with by the High Court except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. According to us, this is not a proper disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back the matter for fresh disposal de novo in accordance with law.
The TPO has to work out the ALP of the international transaction by applying the methods recognized under the Act. He is not competent to hold that the expenditure in question has not been incurred by the assessee or that the assessee has not derived any benefits for the payment made by the assessee and consequently, he cannot consider the ALP as NIL.
U/s 9(1)(vi)(c) royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident is deemed to arise in India where the royalty is payable in respect of any right etc utilised for the purposes of a business carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of earning any income from any source in India. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the payer has a business/ source of income in India. What is important for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is not whether the right to property is used “in” or “for the purpose of” a business, but to determine whether such business is “carried on by such person in India”;
During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005.
After the search and the statement recorded under section 132(4), the assessee, on being issued with notice under section 153A did not file any return. The notice under section 153A was issued on 20-7-2006. It was only when assessment proceedings were taken up for consideration, did the assessee, by letter dated 14-8-2007, request that its return, filed on 31-10-2005,
Even if it is assumed that the assessee continued to remain the owner of the property throughout the year, the other condition of section 32, that the property should have been used for the purpose of the assessee’s business has not been satisfied. There is no proof that the director resided in the property and it was only a claim made by the assessee in the course of the arguments.
