Recent Updates

2014-VIL-358-KER|VAT |High Court Cases | 22.11.2014

M/s SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT): 10.11.2014 - Kerala Value Added Tax Act – Work Contract - Issuance of a liability certificate in Form 20B of the Kerala VAT Rules - Tax amount on the profit retained by sub-contractor – Tax paid under protest – Refund – HELD - When the petitioner had sub-contracted the entire work and also obtained the Form 20H certificate from the sub-contractor who undertook to discharge the tax liability in respect of the entire work that was sub-contracted, the amounts retained by the petitioner, from out of payments made by the awarder of the contract, represented only the profit element that accrued to the petitioner in his capacity as the ma... [Read more]

M/s SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT): 10.11.2014 - Kerala Value Added Tax Act – Work Contract - Issuance of a liability certificate in Form 20B of the Kerala VAT Rules - Tax amount on the profit retained by sub-contractor – Tax paid under protest – Refund – HELD - When the petitioner had sub-contracted the entire work and also obtained the Form 20H certificate from the sub-contractor who undertook to discharge the tax liability in respect of the entire work that was sub-contracted, the amounts retained by the petitioner, from out of payments made by the awarder of the contract, represented only the profit element that accrued to the petitioner in his capacity as the main contractor. It is not in dispute that the tax liability in respect of the work that was sub-contracted was not due from the petitioner in his capacity as the main contractor. In that view of the matter, there was no liability on the petitioner in terms of the Kerala VAT Act since there was no sale of material in the course of execution of works contract that emanated from the petitioner to the awarder of the contract. In the absence of any taxable event under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the respondent could not have demanded tax on the amounts retained by the petitioner as profits arising out of the transaction in question. The demand of tax on profit retained from the petitioner is thus illegal and liable to be set aside – Revenue is directed to refund the tax amount to the petitioner or, in the alternative, give credit to the said amount in the return submitted by the petitioner for future periods – Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-308-CESTAT-DEL-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 22.11.2014

HERO HONDA MOTOCORP LTD Vs CCE, DELHI: 19.09.2014 - Central Excise - Assessable value - Transaction value - Additional consideration received from the dealers, which was being received by them on account of dealers staff training and other schemes - Removal of the goods – HELD - The dealers staff training programme is a scheme innovated and executed from the head office of the company and not from the factory located at Gurgaon. The same is aimed at providing better technical knowledge about the goods and the soft training to the various field staff, for the purpose of understanding the product and further extending the same to their customers. The appellant is bearing the main expenses and ... [Read more]

HERO HONDA MOTOCORP LTD Vs CCE, DELHI: 19.09.2014 - Central Excise - Assessable value - Transaction value - Additional consideration received from the dealers, which was being received by them on account of dealers staff training and other schemes - Removal of the goods – HELD - The dealers staff training programme is a scheme innovated and executed from the head office of the company and not from the factory located at Gurgaon. The same is aimed at providing better technical knowledge about the goods and the soft training to the various field staff, for the purpose of understanding the product and further extending the same to their customers. The appellant is bearing the main expenses and it is only a part of the expenses towards training hall charges, cost of hiring of training equipment which is being recovered from the dealers as a contributory expenses. The said activity of training the staff of the dealers by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a consideration for the sale of the motor cycle to the dealers – Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-307-CESTAT-AHM-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 22.11.2014

M/s JAI CORP. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., VAPI: 19.11.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Extent of admissible credit on inputs which are received by the appellant from 100% EOUs under Notification 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2013 – Credit of Cesses paid before 07.09.2009 – HELD - It is observed from the representative copies of the invoices produced both by the appellant and the Revenue that in some invoices duty is paid under Sr. No. 1 table to of Notification 23/2003-CE. On these invoices where duty is paid under Sr. No.1 of table to Notification 23/2003-CE entire credit of CVD, including cesses will be admissible to the appellant - Regarding admissibility of CENVAT credit on Education Ces... [Read more]

M/s JAI CORP. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., VAPI: 19.11.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Extent of admissible credit on inputs which are received by the appellant from 100% EOUs under Notification 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2013 – Credit of Cesses paid before 07.09.2009 – HELD - It is observed from the representative copies of the invoices produced both by the appellant and the Revenue that in some invoices duty is paid under Sr. No. 1 table to of Notification 23/2003-CE. On these invoices where duty is paid under Sr. No.1 of table to Notification 23/2003-CE entire credit of CVD, including cesses will be admissible to the appellant - Regarding admissibility of CENVAT credit on Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess for the period prior to 07.9.2009 cenvat credit of Cesses is admissible before the amendment also - Calculation of admissible CENVAT credit, as per formula prescribed under Rule 3(7)(a) of the CER, 2004 - While calculating admissible CENVAT credit under Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, appellant has correctly factored Education Cess and Higher Education cess as CVD paid - Wrong calculation lead to excess credit required to be paid by the appellant along with interest - Method of calculating admissible credit as per Rule 3(7) (a) formula was disputed, therefore, no intention to evade payment of duty can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of case. Accordingly, penalties can also not be imposed upon the appellant – Appeal partly allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-354-MAD|VAT |High Court Cases | 21.11.2014

M/s V M R ENGINEERING WORKS Vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER: 06.11.2014 - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Revision of assessment - Order for enhancement of the rate of tax without issuing any show cause notice - Principles of natural justice – HELD - The impugned order of assessment is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same is also held to be bad in law - Revenue is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for both Assessment Years and receive objection from the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner – Assessee appeal allowed

2014-VIL-306-CESTAT-MUM-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 21.11.2014

M/s KEDAR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR: 11.09.2014 - Service Tax - Commercial or Industrial Construction service - Services rendered 'in relation to' transmission and distribution of electricity - Exemption from service tax vide Notification No. 45/10-ST dated 20.7.2010 – HELD - All taxable services rendered in relation to transmission/ distribution of electricity would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said Notification for the period prior to 27.02.2010 - Confirmation of service tax demand in respect of the construction, maintenance or repair activities undertaken by the appellant so far as it relates to the transmission/distribution of electri... [Read more]

M/s KEDAR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR: 11.09.2014 - Service Tax - Commercial or Industrial Construction service - Services rendered 'in relation to' transmission and distribution of electricity - Exemption from service tax vide Notification No. 45/10-ST dated 20.7.2010 – HELD - All taxable services rendered in relation to transmission/ distribution of electricity would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said Notification for the period prior to 27.02.2010 - Confirmation of service tax demand in respect of the construction, maintenance or repair activities undertaken by the appellant so far as it relates to the transmission/distribution of electricity cannot be sustained in law. As regards the other demands which has been confirmed in respect of construction of transformer station for the sugar factory or GTA service etc. the appellant is not disputing the tax liability and therefore in respect of the other activities of the appellant which are not related to either transmission or distribution of electricity, the demands confirmed are upheld along with interest – Since the issue relates to interpretation of an exemption Notification and the statutory provisions, imposition of penalties are not warranted - Appeal partly allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-357-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |High Court Cases | 21.11.2014

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Vs M/s MENON ASSOCIATES: 31.10.2014 - Finance Act, 1994 - Appeals against the decisions of Tribunal – Nature of appeal - Sub-section (2) to Section 35L inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014 – Appeal against Tribunal order holding that the services rendered by the respondent-assessee were not taxable being in the nature of export services – Maintainability of appeal in High Court - HELD - We do not agree with the submissions of the counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the issue raised in the order in original and in the appellate orders did not relate to question of levy of duty/tax or rate of duty/tax. The precise issue, which had arisen was whether the... [Read more]

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Vs M/s MENON ASSOCIATES: 31.10.2014 - Finance Act, 1994 - Appeals against the decisions of Tribunal – Nature of appeal - Sub-section (2) to Section 35L inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014 – Appeal against Tribunal order holding that the services rendered by the respondent-assessee were not taxable being in the nature of export services – Maintainability of appeal in High Court - HELD - We do not agree with the submissions of the counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the issue raised in the order in original and in the appellate orders did not relate to question of levy of duty/tax or rate of duty/tax. The precise issue, which had arisen was whether the assessee was engaged in export of services and, therefore, whether service tax was payable. Reliance was placed by the respondent-assessee on the Rules to make the claim for refund. Prayer for consequential refund could only be granted in case the service rendered was an “export” and, therefore, no service tax was payable and leviable on the said service in terms of the Rules and the circulars/notifications. In these circumstances, we do not think that the appeal is maintainable before the High Court and the same is accordingly directed to be returned [Read less]

2014-VIL-304-CESTAT-BLR-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 21.11.2014

GLOCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs CCEST&CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAM-II: 09.10.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Credit taken on the strength of self-invoice since the use of the inputs was within the same factory which was converted from EOU to DTA - Credit denied only on the ground that the appellants did not produce purchase orders for the finished goods sold by them after processing – HELD - Purchase order is not statutory document and in the absence of it being a statutory requirement even if the purchase order is not there, the appellant cannot be found fault with if they had sold the goods and in the absence of any finding that the goods have not been sold or the documents shown regarding sale were fictitiou... [Read more]

GLOCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs CCEST&CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAM-II: 09.10.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Credit taken on the strength of self-invoice since the use of the inputs was within the same factory which was converted from EOU to DTA - Credit denied only on the ground that the appellants did not produce purchase orders for the finished goods sold by them after processing – HELD - Purchase order is not statutory document and in the absence of it being a statutory requirement even if the purchase order is not there, the appellant cannot be found fault with if they had sold the goods and in the absence of any finding that the goods have not been sold or the documents shown regarding sale were fictitious /bogus and in the absence of finding that the goods were not manufactured by the appellant, just because the appellants had made a declaration that they were transferring the finished goods at the time of conversion, it cannot be said that they became disentitled to CENVAT credit – We consider that this is a case where in the first place proceedings need not have been initiated at all and after initiating proceedings, voluminous documents were produced and it was admitted that they had committed a mistake, even then proceeding with the adjudication and visiting the assessee with a penalty, in our opinion, is very harsh - Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-356-MP|VAT |High Court Cases | 21.11.2014

M/s NAYAN COLOUR LAB Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH: 13.11.2014 - Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - Business of photography, developing and carrying out job work – Assessment - Treating the activities carried on by the petitioner as sale and exigible to the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Entry Tax Act, 1976 – HELD – Following the decision in BSNL & High Court judgement, even in a single and indivisible works contract there is a deemed sale of goods which is involved in the execution of the works contract. Such a deemed sale has all the incidents of a sale of goods involved in the execution of a works contract where the contract is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other... [Read more]

M/s NAYAN COLOUR LAB Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH: 13.11.2014 - Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - Business of photography, developing and carrying out job work – Assessment - Treating the activities carried on by the petitioner as sale and exigible to the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Entry Tax Act, 1976 – HELD – Following the decision in BSNL & High Court judgement, even in a single and indivisible works contract there is a deemed sale of goods which is involved in the execution of the works contract. Such a deemed sale has all the incidents of a sale of goods involved in the execution of a works contract where the contract is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services - With these verdicts it leaves no scope for challenge the assessment carried out by the AO treating the activities carried on by the petitioner as sale and exigible to the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Entry Tax Act, 1976 - Proceedings under Section 69 of 1994 Act for non disclosure of sales set aside – Petition dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-357-MAD-ST|SERVICE TAX |High Court Cases | 20.11.2014

M/s T.T.KRISHNAMACHARI & CO. Vs UNION OF INDIA: 17.11.2014 - Service Tax - Intellectual property service - Copyright - Artistic work – Use of logo by group companies - Service tax on the transfer of right to use copyright – HELD - The issue as to whether service tax is liable to be paid on the nature of transaction done by the petitioner with its group companies, whether the logo which is registered under the Copy Right Act was used as an ‘artistic work’ or merely with the purpose to show that the products marketed by their group companies also belong to the TTK group and whether in that regard, it was in the nature of a trade mark are all issues which involve adjudication of disputed questi... [Read more]

M/s T.T.KRISHNAMACHARI & CO. Vs UNION OF INDIA: 17.11.2014 - Service Tax - Intellectual property service - Copyright - Artistic work – Use of logo by group companies - Service tax on the transfer of right to use copyright – HELD - The issue as to whether service tax is liable to be paid on the nature of transaction done by the petitioner with its group companies, whether the logo which is registered under the Copy Right Act was used as an ‘artistic work’ or merely with the purpose to show that the products marketed by their group companies also belong to the TTK group and whether in that regard, it was in the nature of a trade mark are all issues which involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. These issues cannot be permitted to be raised for being adjudicated in a Writ Petition - The issue raised by the petitioner being an issue relating to classification – The question of entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Prohibition cannot be sustained, more so, taking note of conduct of the petitioner in having agitated the matter before the Tribunal, not disclosed the filing of the appeal for the anterior period, withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal after obtaining stay from this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-20-SC-CE-LB|CENTRAL EXCISE |Supreme Court Cases | 20.11.2014

BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS: 14.11.2014 - Appeal in Tribunal - Section 35C of the CE, 1944 - Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – Can the CESTAT dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution - HELD – The Act does not give any power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution in case the appellant is not present when the appeal is taken up for hearing - Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal wa... [Read more]

BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS: 14.11.2014 - Appeal in Tribunal - Section 35C of the CE, 1944 - Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – Can the CESTAT dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution - HELD – The Act does not give any power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution in case the appellant is not present when the appeal is taken up for hearing - Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The High Court also erred in law in upholding the order of the Tribunal – Assessee appeal allowed with cost [Read less]

2014-VIL-21-SC|VAT |Supreme Court Cases | 20.11.2014

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs M/s STOVEKRAFT PVT LTD: 17.09.2014 - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Rate of tax - Refund - Stainless steel LPG stove & kerosene stove – The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the respondent, it continued to pay the tax at the rate of 12.5% - The legislature has amended the Schedule by specifically excluding 'Stainless Steel LPG Stoves' and 'Kerosene Wick Stoves' from Entry 5 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act - Since the respondent has already paid the tax liability, not by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court, the respondent is not intended to make any claim for... [Read more]

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs M/s STOVEKRAFT PVT LTD: 17.09.2014 - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Rate of tax - Refund - Stainless steel LPG stove & kerosene stove – The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the respondent, it continued to pay the tax at the rate of 12.5% - The legislature has amended the Schedule by specifically excluding 'Stainless Steel LPG Stoves' and 'Kerosene Wick Stoves' from Entry 5 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act - Since the respondent has already paid the tax liability, not by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court, the respondent is not intended to make any claim for refund of the tax paid – HELD - Since the legislature has amended the relevant entries, in our opinion, as of now nothing remains to be considered and decided by this Court - The respondent is restrained from making any claim for refund of the tax paid for the relevant assessment years [Read less]

2014-VIL-356-GUJ-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 20.11.2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS Vs TEXPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD: 10.11.2014 - Central Excise - Territorial jurisdiction of High Court – HELD - We notice that the respondent-assessee has its manufacturing unit located within the Union Territory of Daman - In view of clause (b) of Section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 containing definition of term ‘High Court’ in relation to Union Territory of Goa, Diu and Daman, the High Court would be the High Court of Bombay. In that view of the matter, this appeal would be maintained before the said High Court, and not before Gujarat High Court

2014-VIL-355-ORI|VAT |High Court Cases | 20.11.2014

M/s LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD Vs STATE OF ORISSA: 03.11.2014 - Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Assessment - Assessing officer has not ascribed any reason either for accepting deductions allowed by him nor any reason has been assigned for disallowing certain deductions – HELD - Assessing Officer has not ascribed any reason either for accepting such deductions allowed by him nor any reason has been assigned for disallowing certain deductions. Consequently, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned vis-a-vis the disallowance of certain deductions made lacks reasons, and therefore lacks the foundation of the conclusion arrived at. Thus, the same is viol... [Read more]

M/s LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD Vs STATE OF ORISSA: 03.11.2014 - Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Assessment - Assessing officer has not ascribed any reason either for accepting deductions allowed by him nor any reason has been assigned for disallowing certain deductions – HELD - Assessing Officer has not ascribed any reason either for accepting such deductions allowed by him nor any reason has been assigned for disallowing certain deductions. Consequently, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned vis-a-vis the disallowance of certain deductions made lacks reasons, and therefore lacks the foundation of the conclusion arrived at. Thus, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and as a consequence thereof we direct quashing of the same – Order quashed and matter remanded [Read less]

2014-VIL-303-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 19.11.2014

M/s BHARTI AIRTEL LTD Vs CST, NEW DELHI: 16.09.2014 - Service Tax – Opportunity of personal hearing – Principle of Natural Justice – HELD - Notice of personal hearing should have been given well in advance to enable the appellant to make arrangements for causing appearance before the Commissioner and grant of personal hearing at such short notice that the appellant received the notice for hearing on the date of hearing itself, cannot be said to be granting adequate opportunity of personal hearing. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo... [Read more]

M/s BHARTI AIRTEL LTD Vs CST, NEW DELHI: 16.09.2014 - Service Tax – Opportunity of personal hearing – Principle of Natural Justice – HELD - Notice of personal hearing should have been given well in advance to enable the appellant to make arrangements for causing appearance before the Commissioner and grant of personal hearing at such short notice that the appellant received the notice for hearing on the date of hearing itself, cannot be said to be granting adequate opportunity of personal hearing. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellants [Read less]

2014-VIL-302-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 19.11.2014

AMAN ENTERPRISES Vs CCE&ST, CHANDIGARH-II: 11.09.2014 - Service Tax – Wilful suppression of facts - Non-registration and non-payment of service tax - extended period of limitation – Interest and penalty – HELD - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly considered the fact of non-payment of service tax came to the knowledge of the department only once enquiries were started - No force in the contention of the appellant that extended period of limitation is not invokable since willful suppression has clearly been manifested – Assessee appeal dismissed

2014-VIL-352-DEL-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 19.11.2014

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI –I Vs SHRI RAM UDYOG: 03.09.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35B - Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal - Whether Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi on account of non-compliance of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the committee did not consist of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise – HELD - Section 35E(2) is not applicable when the order/decision is that of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Committee of Chief Commissioners is not required to examine the question whether an appeal should be preferred before the Tribunal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) a... [Read more]

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI –I Vs SHRI RAM UDYOG: 03.09.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35B - Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal - Whether Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi on account of non-compliance of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the committee did not consist of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise – HELD - Section 35E(2) is not applicable when the order/decision is that of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Committee of Chief Commissioners is not required to examine the question whether an appeal should be preferred before the Tribunal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) as the original adjudication order was passed by the Additional Commissioner and not by the Commissioner. It is only when the original adjudication order is passed by the Commissioner, that an appeal lies to the Tribunal and an approval of the Committee of Chief Commissioners is required [Read less]

2014-VIL-301-CESTAT-AHM-CE-LB|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 19.11.2014

M/s HONEST BIO-VET PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-I: 04.09.2014 - Central Excise – Larger Bench – Goods cleared for export - Loss of goods due to fire before the goods could actually be exported - Remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Place of Removal – HELD - Goods cleared for export under Bond which were destroyed before the same could be exported, can be treated as having been destroyed before removal only. This would be the fair interpretation of the Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thus, primary condition of eligibility of Remission of duty on the destroyed goods is fulfilled as required u/r 21 of Rules, 2002 - Appellant is eligi... [Read more]

M/s HONEST BIO-VET PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-I: 04.09.2014 - Central Excise – Larger Bench – Goods cleared for export - Loss of goods due to fire before the goods could actually be exported - Remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Place of Removal – HELD - Goods cleared for export under Bond which were destroyed before the same could be exported, can be treated as having been destroyed before removal only. This would be the fair interpretation of the Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thus, primary condition of eligibility of Remission of duty on the destroyed goods is fulfilled as required u/r 21 of Rules, 2002 - Appellant is eligible for the Remission of duty in respect of goods for export under Bond which were destroyed before the same could be exported [Read less]

2014-VIL-353-RAJ|VAT |High Court Cases | 19.11.2014

M/s PANWAR TRADING CORPORATION Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN: 12.11.2014 - Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 - Input tax credit - Validity of the provisions of subsection (3A) of Section 18, which was inserted by Section 7(iii) of the Finance Act, 2011 with effect from 9.3.2011 – Denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the selling price of the goods is less than the purchase price – HELD - The availment of ITC is creature of Statute. The concession of ITC is granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of the concession are not required to pay the tax or duty which they are otherwise liable to pay under Rajasthan VAT Act. In extending the concession, it is open to the Legislature to impose ... [Read more]

M/s PANWAR TRADING CORPORATION Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN: 12.11.2014 - Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 - Input tax credit - Validity of the provisions of subsection (3A) of Section 18, which was inserted by Section 7(iii) of the Finance Act, 2011 with effect from 9.3.2011 – Denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the selling price of the goods is less than the purchase price – HELD - The availment of ITC is creature of Statute. The concession of ITC is granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of the concession are not required to pay the tax or duty which they are otherwise liable to pay under Rajasthan VAT Act. In extending the concession, it is open to the Legislature to impose conditions. Section 18 is one such condition imposed making it mandatory for the registered dealer to claim ITC within 90 days under sub-section (2), from the date of issuance of invoice, and no ITC will be allowed on certain purchases under sub-section (3). The entitlement to claim Input Tax Credit is created by Rajasthan VAT Act and the terms on which Input Tax Credit can be claimed must be strictly observed - The expression "in the manner as may be prescribed" is used in Section 18. The usage of the expression “in the manner as may be prescribed” occurring, is referable only to the manner prescribed in Section 18. The modalities and the time frame in Section 18, as regards availment or enjoyment of Input Tax Credit, is a pre-condition and not merely procedural - We are not expressing any final opinion, as to whether the goods were sold by the petitioner on subsidy, at a cost lower than the cost of purchase. The question, in this regard, is not a question, which is required to be decided, in considering the constitutional validity of the amendment, which we have upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Read less]