NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I- The provisions of Rules 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent of the Cenvat Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory.
What is to be assessed is the income which the Assessing Officer has believed to have escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. One has to see that the issue of notice under section 148 should be on the basis of belief of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.
Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details.
section 80IA of the Act was restructured into two new distinct sections namely, 80IA and 80IB. The amended provisions extended the benefits to certain sectors. Under section 80IA of the Act profits of approved housing projects where development and construction commenced after 1-10-1998 and completed before 31-3-2001 were fully deductible.
The construction services used for construction of workers’ quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules.
In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by hundred percent EOU (Export-Oriented Undertaking) when sold in India can be subjected to levy of Education Cess under the Central Excise Act.
An assessee to whom the agreement applies has the option of being subjected to tax as per DTAA or the Income-tax Act 1961, which is more beneficial to it. When section 44D is read in juxtaposition to section 115A, it mandates for putting the amount of royalty and fees for technical services to tax at 20% as against 10% as provided by Article 12 of DTAA. The assessee being a person to whom the agreement applies, has rightly subjected itself to taxation at the reduced rate of 10% as per DTAA.
Whether the assessee is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice of the manufacturer in case additional duty of excise is paid suo motu on receipt of the show cause notice alleging wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules with intent to evade duty invoking proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Act?
