Latest Updates: GST Bill - The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-second) Amendment Bill - As tabled in Lok Sabha [see 'Notes & News']| Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court order on Audit by service tax authorities/CAG [2014-VIL-24-SC-ST-LB] | Madhya Pradesh & Rajasthan Notification regarding amendment in Schedule | Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2014 - Amendment in Schedule | Himachal Pradesh: Draft amendment in Schedule | Bombay High Court upholds Constitutional validity of levy of Service Tax on Advocates and legal services [2014-VIL-390-BOM-ST] | Bombay High Court quashed Larger Bench order on excisability of Aluminium dross and skimmings [2014-VIL-391-BOM-CE]

Recent Updates

2014-VIL-356-CESTAT-MUM-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 19.12.2014

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI Vs TRAFFIC MANAGER, MUMBAI PORT TRUST: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax - Port services – Compensation received as 'wharfage' charge - Service in relation to a vessel or goods - In consideration for allowing ONGC to lay submarine pipelines through the Port limits, Mumbai Port Trust was paid compensation by ONGC - The Revenue is of the view that the compensation received by the respondent from ONGC is taxable under the category of Port Services – HELD - Payments were made by ONGC to MPT merely for permission to use port limits to lay pipelines under the land and seabed and not for receiving any service - Agreement between the respondent and ONGC that the payment we... [Read more]

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI Vs TRAFFIC MANAGER, MUMBAI PORT TRUST: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax - Port services – Compensation received as 'wharfage' charge - Service in relation to a vessel or goods - In consideration for allowing ONGC to lay submarine pipelines through the Port limits, Mumbai Port Trust was paid compensation by ONGC - The Revenue is of the view that the compensation received by the respondent from ONGC is taxable under the category of Port Services – HELD - Payments were made by ONGC to MPT merely for permission to use port limits to lay pipelines under the land and seabed and not for receiving any service - Agreement between the respondent and ONGC that the payment were made merely for permission to use port limit and not for receiving any service. The term used as 'wharfage' is merely to determine the measure of the compensation and not to determine the nature of the service rendered – Revenue appeal dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-24-SC-ST-LB|SERVICE TAX |Supreme Court Cases | 19.12.2014

UNION OF INDIA Vs M/s TRAVELITE (INDIA): 18.12.2014 - Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Rule 5A(2) - Audit by service tax authorities/CAG – Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court order holding Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules cannot be justified on the basis of the Service Tax Audit Manual

2014-VIL-395-MAD-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 19.12.2014

TRACTOR AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE: 28.11.2014 - Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Reversal of credit on inputs used in final products – Whether Tribunal is right in holding that credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or contained in the finished tractors lying in stock and already utilised, is liable to be reversed or paid back following the exemption of tractors, when there is no statutory provision to do so – HELD - Once it is held that no co-relation between the raw material and the final product is required, the appellant's plea stands answered. If credit can be taken against excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day, it m... [Read more]

TRACTOR AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE: 28.11.2014 - Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Reversal of credit on inputs used in final products – Whether Tribunal is right in holding that credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or contained in the finished tractors lying in stock and already utilised, is liable to be reversed or paid back following the exemption of tractors, when there is no statutory provision to do so – HELD - Once it is held that no co-relation between the raw material and the final product is required, the appellant's plea stands answered. If credit can be taken against excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day, it makes it abundantly clear that there need not be co-relation between the input and the goods cleared and as a result, validly taken credit need not be reversed. The Central Excise Rules would come into play in the following manner, that is to say, on the date when the final goods become exempt from payment of duty, for the inputs received on and after the said date, no credit can be taken. This would be the correct method of understanding of the position of law – Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-394-KAR|VAT |High Court Cases | 19.12.2014

M/s ENERCON (INDIA) INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES: 30.10.2014 - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - The assessee effected the purchase of capital goods like transformers, structurals, cables, cable poles and hardware items and fabricated items from the local registered dealers and disclosed the input tax on the said purchase of capital goods for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. The electrical energy falls under Sl.No.22 of Schedule-I of the Act and is exempted from the output tax. As the assessee is not liable to pay any output tax, the claim of input tax was disallowed on the ground that input tax credit was claimed with a mala fide intention an... [Read more]

M/s ENERCON (INDIA) INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES: 30.10.2014 - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - The assessee effected the purchase of capital goods like transformers, structurals, cables, cable poles and hardware items and fabricated items from the local registered dealers and disclosed the input tax on the said purchase of capital goods for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. The electrical energy falls under Sl.No.22 of Schedule-I of the Act and is exempted from the output tax. As the assessee is not liable to pay any output tax, the claim of input tax was disallowed on the ground that input tax credit was claimed with a mala fide intention and penalty was levied – HELD - In the instant case, the assessee has purchased goods and he has paid tax. In VAT 100 he has clearly set out the tax paid, which he was entitled to as input credit if he had paid any output tax. Admittedly, he has not paid any output tax. He is not claiming any credit. In the return he has mentioned the tax paid and in the column meant for input tax, he has mentioned the input tax paid. In the column for refund it is stated that he is not entitled to any refund nor can he claim any refund. Under those circumstances; it is neither a case of under stating the tax liability or over stating the entitlement of tax, which is a condition precedent for the application of Section 72 (2) of the Act. He has not claimed any tax benefit at all. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the first appellate authority was in accordance with law – Penalty set aside appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-354-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 18.12.2014

PREMIER PEST CONTROL PVT LTD Vs C.S.T., DELHI-I: 27.11.2014 - Service Tax – Classification - Pre-construction anti-termite treatment - Demand - Service was being provided to the contractors engaged in providing commercial or industrial construction service (CICS) or the construction of complex service (CCS) and the appellants being sub-contractors, their service was also classified as CICS or CCS in terms of CBEC Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 – HELD - While reference to Board’s Circulars for the purpose of deciding classification does not have any legal sanction nor do we intend to so dignify them, it is pertinent to mention that even the said Board’s Circular also nowhere state... [Read more]

PREMIER PEST CONTROL PVT LTD Vs C.S.T., DELHI-I: 27.11.2014 - Service Tax – Classification - Pre-construction anti-termite treatment - Demand - Service was being provided to the contractors engaged in providing commercial or industrial construction service (CICS) or the construction of complex service (CCS) and the appellants being sub-contractors, their service was also classified as CICS or CCS in terms of CBEC Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 – HELD - While reference to Board’s Circulars for the purpose of deciding classification does not have any legal sanction nor do we intend to so dignify them, it is pertinent to mention that even the said Board’s Circular also nowhere states that all the services provided by a sub-contractor to the main contractor would necessaryily fall under the same classification which is applicable to the service rendered by the main contractor. Thus the lower authorities have clearly misread the said CBEC Circular to hold that the appellants were providing CICS/CCS - Classification of service does not alter based on to whom it is rendered - This activity can by no stretch of imagination be covered under the definition of CICS or CCS – Impugned order quashed and assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-355-CESTAT-BLR-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 18.12.2014

AVERY DENNISON INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX & CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-II: 14.11.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Demand for CENVAT credit with interest and penalty as appellants had availed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid in another – HELD - Appellant had taken the credit attributable to another premises in their unit and this happened because of an error in accounting process and there was a mistake. It is not necessary as per law to declare each and every credit entry and submit document relating to such credit entry. That being the position, the appellant cannot be found fault with for not submitting the details to the department since in accordance with statutory p... [Read more]

AVERY DENNISON INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX & CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-II: 14.11.2014 - Cenvat Credit - Demand for CENVAT credit with interest and penalty as appellants had availed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid in another – HELD - Appellant had taken the credit attributable to another premises in their unit and this happened because of an error in accounting process and there was a mistake. It is not necessary as per law to declare each and every credit entry and submit document relating to such credit entry. That being the position, the appellant cannot be found fault with for not submitting the details to the department since in accordance with statutory provisions it is not required to be done. However there is no doubt that a mis-declaration has taken place to the extent that when they make a credit entry it amounts to a declaration that input service has been used in respect of the activities undertaken therein and is admissible and subsequently if it is found to be unsustainable, it definitely amounts to mis-declaration. When the question of miss-declaration arises, it has to be coupled with intention to evade duty - Appellants are paying crores as revenue and have no such intention to avail excess credit and in any case the credit was admissible to the appellant in other unit - Therefore when mandatory penalty is not leviable, penalty of 25% already paid by them and not contested can be held as sufficient - The impugned order requiring the appellant to pay balance 75% of the penalty is set aside [Read less]

2014-VIL-23-SC|VAT |Supreme Court Cases | 18.12.2014

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs NOKIA INDIA PVT LTD: 17.11.2014 - Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Rate of tax on cell phone battery charger sold as mobile/cellular phone under a single solo pack unit – Demand for differential tax - battery charger is an accessory to the main product that is mobile phone – HELD – The Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the battery charger is not a part of the mobile/cell phone. If the charger was a part of cell phone, then cell phone could not have been operated without using the battery charger. But in reality, it is not required at the time of operation. Further, the battery in the cell phone can be charged directly from the ot... [Read more]

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs NOKIA INDIA PVT LTD: 17.11.2014 - Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Rate of tax on cell phone battery charger sold as mobile/cellular phone under a single solo pack unit – Demand for differential tax - battery charger is an accessory to the main product that is mobile phone – HELD – The Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the battery charger is not a part of the mobile/cell phone. If the charger was a part of cell phone, then cell phone could not have been operated without using the battery charger. But in reality, it is not required at the time of operation. Further, the battery in the cell phone can be charged directly from the other means also like laptop without employing the battery charger, implying thereby, that it is nothing but an accessory to the mobile phone - Battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone. The High Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and wrongly held that the battery charger is a part of the cell phone – Revenue appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-390-BOM-ST|SERVICE TAX |High Court Cases | 17.12.2014

P. C. JOSHI & BOMBAY BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA: 15.12.2014 - Service Tax - Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on Advocates and legal services – Validity of section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 - Broadly, the argument is that advocate render services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned in the Finance Act 1994. Advocacy is not a business but a profession and a noble one. An advocate is a part and parcel of the administration of justice and which is a sovereign or regal function and hence providing for a Service Tax on advocates would mean that the... [Read more]

P. C. JOSHI & BOMBAY BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA: 15.12.2014 - Service Tax - Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on Advocates and legal services – Validity of section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 - Broadly, the argument is that advocate render services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned in the Finance Act 1994. Advocacy is not a business but a profession and a noble one. An advocate is a part and parcel of the administration of justice and which is a sovereign or regal function and hence providing for a Service Tax on advocates would mean that their services will no longer be available or accessible to those seeking justice from a Court of law. That would defeat the constitutional guarantee of free, fair and impartial justice – HELD - So long as the tax is imposed with legal authority it does not violate the mandate of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. That cannot be held to be a unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The tax cannot be said to be excessive. It is when services are rendered to such entities and persons by not individual advocates but those working on business lines, then, if they are brought within the net of taxable services and service tax is levied on them, they can hardly complain. Their right to carry on legal profession and as per their choice can hardly be said to be taken away much less adversely affected - The legislature by inserting such provision has neither interfered with the role and function of an advocate nor has it made any inroad and interference in the constitutional guarantee of justice to all. The services provided to a individual client by a individual advocate continues to be exempted from the purview of the Finance Act and consequently Service Tax but when an individual advocate provides service or agrees to provide services to any business entity located in the taxable territory, then, he is included and liable to pay Service Tax - What holds good for chartered accountants and architects must equally apply to other professionals such as advocates, and who too are well conscious of their status - The classification between service provided to business entities and individuals cannot be said to be illusory. The classification has a definite nexus and with the object sought to be achieved. If that is to explore and expand the sources of revenue and by widening the tax net, then, it is achieved by bringing within the fold the aforementioned services. There is, therefore, no violation of the constitutional mandate. The classification cannot be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, unreasonable and unjust - Article 39A not only includes free legal aid by the appointment of counsel for litigants but also includes ensuring that justice is not denied to litigating parties due to financial difficulties. That aspect is taken care of in the present tax set up by excluding from the tax net the individual litigants and services provided to them by individual advocates. Therefore, there is no infraction of the constitutional mandate - Scope of Mega Notification No.25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 – HELD - The services provided by individuals as an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates by way of legal services to any person other than a business entity or a business entity with a turnover upto Rs 10 lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the Finance Act. Therefore, the small businessman, petty traders and persons carrying on business in individual capacity would be able to afford the services of individual advocates or a partnership firm of advocates. In such circumstances and when the term 'business entity' has been understood to include a individual he will not be deprived of quality legal services if his turnover in the preceding financial year is within the limits specified above - Service Tax on services provided by Arbitral Tribunal or an individual advocate or a firm of advocates by way of support services to any business entity - HELD - After the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was enacted, the nature of the disputes referred to and to be resolved by arbitration demonstrate that the same has attained the character of “corporate luxury”. The hefty fees charged by the Tribunal and the Advocates per day and sometimes per hour make it difficult for litigants including companies to bear the costs of Arbitration. There is no basis for the argument that by the service tax provision section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is given a go-bye. We are sorry to say this but day after day we receive complaints as to how arbitration is beyond the reach of a common man - Once the law has been amended and the burden now falls on the recipient, then, all the more the advocates whether appearing either individually or as a firm can hardly complain. They come within the tax bracket only because they are rendering service to a business entity located in the Taxable territory. It is only such service which is taxable. The individual advocate rendering service to individual is not in any manner affected - Levy of service tax not unconstitutional – Writ Petitions dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-352-CESTAT-CHE-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 17.12.2014

M/s INDIA SWITCH COMPANY PVT LTD Vs CST, CHENNAI: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax – ATM Service - Appellants are engaged in the business of providing ATM facilities and other allied activities related to ATM services - Demand of service tax under the ‘Banking and other Financial Services’ under the category of Financial leasing services including equipment leasing – Period prior to 01.05.2006 - Whether the appellants providing the ATM facilities to various Banks is covered under Section 65(11)(i) Financial Leasing Services including equipment leasing and Provision and Transfer of Information and Data processing under Banking and other Financial services during the period from 16.08.2002 to 15.06.... [Read more]

M/s INDIA SWITCH COMPANY PVT LTD Vs CST, CHENNAI: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax – ATM Service - Appellants are engaged in the business of providing ATM facilities and other allied activities related to ATM services - Demand of service tax under the ‘Banking and other Financial Services’ under the category of Financial leasing services including equipment leasing – Period prior to 01.05.2006 - Whether the appellants providing the ATM facilities to various Banks is covered under Section 65(11)(i) Financial Leasing Services including equipment leasing and Provision and Transfer of Information and Data processing under Banking and other Financial services during the period from 16.08.2002 to 15.06.2005 – HELD - The very fact that the Govt. introduced specific and separate ATM Service in the finance Act and w.e.f. 01.05.2006, no service tax is leviable for ATM services prior to 01.05.2006 - In the case of finance lease the lesser transfer all the risks and rewards incidental to the ownership to the lessee. In the present case, the ATMs are owned by the appellants and no rights or risk and rewards are transferred to the Banks. The appellant collects charges for proving ATM Services as facility charges per ATM per day basis. Therefore, by following the Apex Court [Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies] decision, we hold that the appellants providing ATMs and other ATM related activities do not fall under BOF as Financial leasing including equipment leasing and transfer of information or data processing - Impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-353-CESTAT-CHE-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 17.12.2014

M/s HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD Vs CCE, PONDICHERRY: 14.11.2014 - Central Excise – Denial of abatement – Claim of abatement towards Equalized/average sales tax provisionally on the basis of the particulars available for the previous quarter - During the finalization of the assessment, the appellants produced the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate for the average sales tax on products price – HELD - Issue is no longer res integra - Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and P&L account is conclusive proof of such payments. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. Advocate submits that none of the final orders of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the appellate forum. In view of the above, ... [Read more]

M/s HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD Vs CCE, PONDICHERRY: 14.11.2014 - Central Excise – Denial of abatement – Claim of abatement towards Equalized/average sales tax provisionally on the basis of the particulars available for the previous quarter - During the finalization of the assessment, the appellants produced the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate for the average sales tax on products price – HELD - Issue is no longer res integra - Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and P&L account is conclusive proof of such payments. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. Advocate submits that none of the final orders of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the appellate forum. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to take a different view of the earlier final orders - Impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-391-BOM-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 17.12.2014

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs THE UNION OF INDIA: 08.12.2014 - Central Excise - Excisability of aluminium dross and skimmings – Term ‘Manufactured goods’ - Explanation added to section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Period post 10th May, 2008 – HELD - Merely because the goods satisfying the test of being marketed and saleable, it does not mean that the test of being manufactured in India has been satisfied - Tribunal has reached a conclusion, which, no reasonable person in the position and as an adjudicating body could have reached – The Larger Bench decision did not take into account the fact that the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court and repeatedly rendered is binding o... [Read more]

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs THE UNION OF INDIA: 08.12.2014 - Central Excise - Excisability of aluminium dross and skimmings – Term ‘Manufactured goods’ - Explanation added to section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Period post 10th May, 2008 – HELD - Merely because the goods satisfying the test of being marketed and saleable, it does not mean that the test of being manufactured in India has been satisfied - Tribunal has reached a conclusion, which, no reasonable person in the position and as an adjudicating body could have reached – The Larger Bench decision did not take into account the fact that the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court and repeatedly rendered is binding on it. That is law declared under Articles 141 of the Constitution of India. That it is rendered in the case of identical issues, controversy and the Assessee makes these Judgments of the Supreme Court all the more binding. Their binding effect is not lost merely because the Tribunal has another occasion to consider the issue or another shade of the same controversy. So long as there are Supreme Court Judgments in the field, we do not see how the Revenue could have proceeded to disregard them - Board Circulars 28.10.2009 & 14.02.2011 cannot survive - Aluminium dross and skimmings are not excisable even post 10.05.2008 – Tribunal Larger Bench order quashed - Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-392-GUJ|VAT |High Court Cases | 17.12.2014

AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT: 28.11.2014 - Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Industrial Input - Thermoplastic road marking material – Residual entry - provisional attachment during pendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment of turnover escaping assessment – HELD - There is sufficient material for the petitioner to contend prima facie that its declaration of the product falling under entry 42A of the II Schedule is correct. The tax already collected is sufficient to meet with the petitioner's tax liability - The power of provisional attachment is in the nature of an extraordinary measure available to the revenue authorities for the purpose of protecting int... [Read more]

AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT: 28.11.2014 - Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Industrial Input - Thermoplastic road marking material – Residual entry - provisional attachment during pendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment of turnover escaping assessment – HELD - There is sufficient material for the petitioner to contend prima facie that its declaration of the product falling under entry 42A of the II Schedule is correct. The tax already collected is sufficient to meet with the petitioner's tax liability - The power of provisional attachment is in the nature of an extraordinary measure available to the revenue authorities for the purpose of protecting interest of Government revenue. Even before any assessment is made, such powers can be exercised if the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue, it is necessary to do so. The power thus, is of drastic nature – Alternative remedy - When the facts are so demonstrably clear not requiring any examination of disputed question of facts, only on the ground of availability of alternative appellate remedy, the writ petition would not be turned down – Impugned order quashed - Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-393-MP|VAT |High Court Cases | 17.12.2014

COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX INDORE Vs M/s BHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL: 27.11.2014 - Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - Sale of maize to Poultry/ Dairy Farms – Exemption - Notification No.110 dated 10-12-1997 – Denial of exemption on the ground that requisite declaration form has not been submitted - HELD - It is the case of the assessee that the declaration is only with regard to item covered under Entry No.29 and not to Entry No.28, and there is no provision of declaration with regard to items mention in Entry No.28. The declaration as is seen from the notification appended to Items in Entry No.29 and therefore, the appellate Board has not committed any error while granting exemption to the... [Read more]

COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX INDORE Vs M/s BHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL: 27.11.2014 - Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - Sale of maize to Poultry/ Dairy Farms – Exemption - Notification No.110 dated 10-12-1997 – Denial of exemption on the ground that requisite declaration form has not been submitted - HELD - It is the case of the assessee that the declaration is only with regard to item covered under Entry No.29 and not to Entry No.28, and there is no provision of declaration with regard to items mention in Entry No.28. The declaration as is seen from the notification appended to Items in Entry No.29 and therefore, the appellate Board has not committed any error while granting exemption to the appellant that the sale of sale of maize to Poultry/ Dairy Farms – Appeal dismissed [Read less]