|| New User || My profile || My Book Marks || SMS Services || Annual Subscription || Lost Password ||
Stay
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. - NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value - Tri MAT - Agriculture income - sale of tea plant - Since these two items are of agricultural income it should be allowed as deduction while computing income u/s. 115JB being book profit - Tri Re-assessment - No addition is made rather from the records the information available was used for making disallowance - the order of reopening is quashed - Tri Performance incentive paid to employees - tds - the estimated TDS deducted in a bona fide manner as per the settled legal position cannot be faulted with. - Tri Disallowance of expenditure in computing the income under the head capital gains - cost of making the title complete and perfect can be treated as the 'cost of acquisition' falling u/s. 48. - Tri True, genuine and bona fide transactions, even if made below par, the fair market valuation would not have any tax implication, being only undertaken in the normal course of business and in its interest.l - Tri Guilty of willful omission - in the normal course, there would be no reason for the selling dealer to doubt the declaration made by the purchasing dealer, in the Form ST-1 - HC Expression tax due as appearing in section 27(1) has to be read in conjunction with provisions of section 21(3) and interest u/s 27(1) is payable only on the tax due according to the return filed - HC Trade tax on mushroom - mushroom has been excluded from category of fresh fruits and green vegetables. - not exempted - HC The CLB has, under the garb of doing substantial justice, granted extreme directions under Section 402, enabling the Respondents to achieve indirectly a virtual veto right on all issues and the ability to paralyze the functioning of the Company - HC Amalgamation - u/s 391 the C. Govt. & IT Authority do not have any powers to intervene or to be heard on any scheme which is filed seeking sanction of the Court - HC Payment of commission to relatives for the services rendered by them for promoting sales. - genuineness of commission established - deduction allowed - HC Rejection of the application for registration – Manufacture of cigarettes - No condition regarding issue of licence under IRDA Act by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, before the issue of Central excise registration certificate - refusal of registration is incorrect - Tri Penalty u/s 78 - Changeability of service tax on rent income classifiable under the category of Renting of Immovable Property. - penalty imposed set aside. - Tri Construction of complex - several quarters - different buildings in the same compound. - None of the buildings had more than 12 flats in each building - Prima facie case in favor of assessee - pre deposit waived. - Tri Retreading of old tyres - Maintenance and Repair service - benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 - prima facie case is against the assessee - stay granted partly. - Tri Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - assessee is not a company placed with experts advising - Assessee is only an individual which must be appreciated - Delay condoned - Tri Grossing up of the expenditure with TDS amount for claiming deduction - Non reimbursable tax paid to Master Cards/Visa Cards included under the head “Operating Expenses“ - Claim allowed - Tri    Left Stop Right
 
Discussions Forum

Shares your views, knowledge and experience

Let others be enriched with your views, knowledge & experience

 
Previous Next
proof of export under CT-1
 
Issue Id: - 3215
Dated: -23-07-2011
By:- suresh babu
proof of export under CT-1
Central Excise

We are exporting under  CT-1 Bond through merchant export, our excise department is asking proof of export documents under CT-1 endorsed by Customs officer and BRC, Bill of Lading, packing list, invoice

 

 
 
Previous Posts


Dated: - 23-07-2011
By: - pradeep khatri

Whoever had executed the B-1 General Bond will be liable to submit the proof of export.  Further, the other party can submit the acnowledged copy (photcopy) of the proof of export to the concerned authority.




Dated: - 24-07-2011
By: - NEERAJ KUMAR

The central excise department is correct. Since u have removed ur excisable goods from ur factory without payment of duty for export, you must have exported under bond, so as per provision you have to make sure that these goods are exported with in six months of removal from the factory and thats why the deptt is asking for proof of export, so what is the problem in submitting proof of export.




Dated: - 24-07-2011
By: - ROHAN THAKKAR

Dear Sir,

Before I proceed for a reply, I am confirming following things.

  • You are a manufacturer registered with Central Excise
  • You have exported through a merchant exporter whereby he has given a copy of CT-1 to you (in orignal)
  • The export must have been made under ARE-1 or ARE-2 whereby the fact that it is under CT-1 has been mentioned.

In the aforesaid cases, where the goods has been removed under a cover of CT-1 which has been taken by executing Bond B-1, the duty liability will be that of Merchant Exporter [Chapter 7:- CBEC Manual]




Dated: - 25-07-2011
By: - Mangesh Lokre

 

Its true that whoever executing the bond, is liable to discharge the duty liability in case of failure to comply the conditions notified therein.

The Excise Department of Manufacturer's Jurisdiction cannt insit the manufacturer to provide the Proof of Export, when the export is done through Merchant Export

You may ask the Excise Department to confirm them from the Merchant Exporters Jurisdiction. This is normally followed by the Deaprtment.

 




Dated: - 25-07-2011
By: - pradeep khatri

Dear Suresh,

I do confirm the views/replies and inputs of all experts on your query regarding submission of proof of export for goods procured by Merchant Exporter under CT-1.

Best Regards,

 

Pradeep Khatri

 




Dated: - 05-08-2011
By: - deepak sharma

Dear Sir,

In my practice the executer of bond is always responsible for the proof of export. the above quarry is that, the department asking proof of export from manufacturer of such goods which exported through merchant exporter. here is 100% liability to produce the proof of of export to merchant exporter end, not any single percent to the manufacturer of such goods. once a manufacturer received a CT-1 form, the CT-1 form is prima-facie document to relase the goods without payment of duty under ARE-1 including excise bill. yes, if department asking for proof of export certificaate, which issued to the merchant exporter after his submission of proof of export, then manufacturer provide him a photocopy of certificate of proof of export. thanks     


 
 
Previous Next

 

what is new what is new

Subscription UpdatesNewslettersCommunicationOther Options




Go to Mobile Website

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.