As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the refund claim ought to be filed within a period of one year from the payment of service tax by the person claiming the refund as per the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. From the records it is seen that the appellant had paid the service tax on 24/10/2008, and the refund claim was filed on 28/01/2010 i.e. after a lapse of one year from the date of payment of tax. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim on account of time bar is sustainable in law.
Thus, it has been held that the accumulated profits do not include current year’s business profit, since it accrues only at the end of the year. Further the loan or advance treated as deemed income up to the date of fresh loan is to be reduced from the accumulated profits. Consistent with the view taken by the Ahmedabad bench in the above said case, we also hold so.
Tribunal held that in the absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees which has been declared by him in the P&L account and when the professional income declared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned.
Under Section 220(6) of the Act, where an appeal was pending against the assessment order, the assessee was not to be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the amount in dispute in appeal, in the discretion of the Assessing Officer on such conditions as he may think fit to impose. The Assessing Officer is, thus, required to pass a reasoned speaking order.
We have carefully gone through sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction under that section is allowed in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee. Hence, the condition for allowing any deduction is the creation of any provision for bad and doubtful debts, which can only be created in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the sum of Rs.32,72,731/- without making any provision as stated in sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the same.
The first question is whether the assessee-company had produced reasonable evidence to support its claim of incurring expenditure to the extent of Rs. 32,99,650. The answer is a categorical “no”. This position has been upheld even by the Tribunal. The assessee has not produced details or any evidence to support its claim of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 32,99,650.
Ammonia is imported by the appellant and after goods are cleared from the port and the goods are delivered to the appellants. Procurement of the input is over after taking delivery of the goods. Thereafter appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on inward transportation of the inputs as per definitions of the input service.
Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry with regard to SRO rate as on 13.6.2005 and also the fact of giving the possession of the property to the purchaser on 13.6.2005 itself, and to decide the issue in the light of the Tribunal order in the case of M. Siva Parvathi (supra) and the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of Veepee Enterprises (supra) and the Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (supra). The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider all the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue as the grievance of the Assessing Officer is that assessee has submitted additional evidence which was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claim, therefore, would not fall within section 11B of the Act.
