|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 16027 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 1157
Transfer pricing adjustment - upward adjustment in Arm’s Length Price - selection of M/s Genesys International as comparable - Held that:- The assessee files before us annual report of this entity for 2008-09 stating it to be involved in land base mapping and in geographical information systems. This company also claims itself to be capable in GIS consulting, 3D mapping, Navigation maps, LiDAR, Photogrammetry remote sensing services, Utility services, Image processing, surveying, Business geographics & Logistics, Cadastral Mapping, City Scape and Telecommunications. These facts lead to an inference that there is mutually contradictory information in the public domain pertaining to the said entity. In other words, its functions in annual report and public domain differ. Faced with this situation, we are of the view that a remand order simpliciter will not meet the ends of justice. Thus, in the larger of interest of justice, we deem it appropriate that the impugned ‘PLI’ has to be decided somewhere between 20% and 32.8% i.e @ 23%. The assessee’s grounds are partly accepted. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a consequential order computing upward adjustment accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1156
Reopening of assessment - expenses incurred for development of certain products will give an enduring benefit to the assessee and same is in the capital field - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The assessee has incurred expenditure of ₹ 31.20 lacs on salaries, wages, stores & sapares, travelleing etc. No expenditure has been incurred on any asset of the nature fixed assets or capital in nature or which has resulted into any benefit of enduring nature. The expenditure had been incurred for improvement and enhancement of its existing business in the line of chemical manufacturing under the unity and control of same management with common funds etc. See Rama Synthetics India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2009 (9) TMI 635 - Delhi High Court ) & CIT Vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. reported in (2008 (5) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT). CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 31.2 lakhs - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1155
Payment of BMC charges - disallowance as enal in nature as per Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act - Held that:- There are series of decisions on the point wherein distinction has been carved out between the penalty paid for infraction and for irregularities. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the payment in question does not fall under the category of a penalty for an offence which is prohibited by law. Hence the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1154
Penalty u/s 221 - Non deduction of TDS - held that:- CIT (A) recorded that the assessee did not make any payment either in cash or in cheque, to PCL Projects Ltd, therefore, the question of deduction of TDS does not arise. It was THDC which made payments directly to Rithwik Projects Ltd. There is also a finding that M/s. THDC deducted the tax on the joint venture and that the joint venture admitted the gross receipts and took credit of TDS and claimed refund also. These facts are not disputed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal - when the assessee has admittedly not paid any amount to M/s Rithwik Projects Ltd and when the assessee has accounted for only the commission, the question of the assessee deducting the tax at source does not arise - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1153
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee has disclosed all the particulars of the income and it cannot be stated that the assessee has concealed any particular and furnished incorrect particulars. Once proper disclosures have been made then penalty is not attracted in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. Further the return was filed on the basis of the certificate issued by the chartered accountant and even if it is a mistake on the part of the chartered accountant, the assessee can always take the shelter that he was under bona fide belief on the basis of such advice that deduction was claimed on the basis of such bona fide belief. Therefore, in our opinion this is not a fit case for levy of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1152
Exclusion of stock in trade from average value of investment for the purpose of disallowance made u/ s 14A r.w. Rule 8D (2)(ii) - Held that:- When the assessee is in the business of share trading as well as future & option then the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the course of business activity of trading in shares would be considered exclusively for business activity and the same cannot be apportioned being an expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income.
The expenditure attributable towards the earning of the exempt income directly related to the dividend income has to be disallowed as the same cannot be claimed against the taxable income of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance computed under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be more than the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for the dividend income excluding the activity of share trading which is the business activity of the assessee. Even the computation of disallowance arrived as per the Rule 8D should be restricted only to the extent of actual expenditure or to the extent of the expenditure which can be attributable to the activity of the dividend income excluding the business activity of share trading. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A with the rider to the actual expenditure which can be attributable to the receipt or earning of the dividend income excluding the expenditure related to business activity of share trading. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1151
Unexplained deposits in the bank accounts - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- On perusal of the order passed by ld. CIT(A), it appears that CIT(A) has accepted assessee’s claim merely on its face value without properly making any enquiry to find out whether assessee’s claim is correct. Further, CIT(A) is under misconception that AO has only considered the deposits without taking into account the withdrawals. As can be seen from the assessment order, AO has considered both the deposits and withdrawals and worked out the peak credit of ₹ 31,13,502 for the purpose of addition. In these circumstances, ld. CIT(A)’s finding is not sustainable.
However, fact remains that AO has also not properly appreciated the facts and could not make effective enquiry due to constraint of time as assessment was getting time barred. Thus the entire issue relating to deposits into assessee’s bank account requires examination afresh in view of the claim made by assessee before the first appellate authority. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1150
Disallowance of corporate cost of allocation expenses - Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- Court admits the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Since these evidences go to the root of the matter for adjudication of the allowability of corporate cost of allocation expenses, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case. The AO shall decide the issue afresh and as per law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1149
Interest receivable on the loans advanced to the associate enterprise - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the loan was given in the year 2005. It is also undisputed fact that interest rate charged as LIBOR plus 200 basis points have been accepted in completed assessments from AYs 2005-06 to 2008-09. Thus, by taking a different view on the same set of facts violates the rule of consistency. Secondly, the DRP erred in considering the loan as loan from India. The fact of the matter is that it was a foreign currency loan which was given abroad. Therefore the most appropriate method is taking the LIBOR as correct benchmark. A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Hinduja Global Solution Ltd. [2013 (6) TMI 420 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Considering the past history and the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we find that the benchmarking done by the assessee is correct and the AO is directed to delete the addition.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 neither the assessee has provided any comparable rates to the revenue authorities nor the revenue authorities have made any attempt either by asking the assessee to provide for the comparable nor they suo moto collected any data from the market. What the revenue authorities have done is that they have relied on the internal comparable only to arrive at a figure of estimated charges per carat. In fact, the AO should have collected independent data or have asked the assessee to provide comparable periodic rates prevailing in the market at Deesa to set the bench mark. This exercise has not been done by the AO or by the CIT(A), which according to us, the revenue authorities should have done to arrive at some definite estimate. Thus matter is restored to the file of the AO to be decided afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of deduction for donations made u/s. 80G - assessee stated that for some reason the donation receipts could not be produced before the AO. Further, if one more opportunity is given, necessary details will be submitted before the AO - Held that:- We direct the AO to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee for the claim of deduction on account of donation u/s. 80G of the Act. The assessee is directed to submit necessary details in support of its claim. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1148
Default u/s 201(1) - non deduction of taxes u/s 194C and 194J - Held that:- According to the assessee on the payments made with regard to Brain Lara Event, it had deducted the tax and deposited to the govt. treasury. These facts ought to have been verified by the Assessing Officer before raising a demand against the assessee. Taking into consideration these details, we are of the view that the issue needs to be re-looked at the end of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to submit complete details of the payments including the challan Nos. indicating that the TDS was deducted and it was paid to the govt. treasury. Our observation will not impair or injure the case of the Assessing Officer and will not cause any prejudice to the defense/explanation of the assessee. The assessee will be at liberty to raise any plea or submit any evidence in support of its explanation. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1147
Stay application - Held that:- Appellate Tribunal will endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of three years from the date it is filed. The significance of the words “where it is possible to do so” cannot be lost site of in interpreting the provision. The statutory provision is therefore not a complete embargo that under all circumstances, notwithstanding any other issue involved, stay has to be mandatorily vacated. In other words, the statutory provision is itself discretionary in nature and its operation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the assessee after obtaining stay plays truant to delay disposal, the statutory provision can certainly be invoked. It cannot be invoked if the respondents play truant to delay disposal so that the statutory period would lapse, stay would have to be vacated and the appeal rendered futile. If despite diligence on the part of the appellant, the Tribunal has not been able to take up the appeal due to pressure of pendency of cases, stay cannot be vacated. Any interpretation to the contrary shall be doing complete violence to the statutory provisions and has to be rejected.
The Tribunal itself states that the appeals of earlier years were pending and therefore, it has not been able to decide appellant’s appeal. The appellant was not at fault. It is trite law that the act of the Court can prejudice none stated in the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. The delay in disposal of the appeal is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the Tribunal and not to the assessee. - The impugned order dated 16-6-2014 vacating the stay on ground that the statutory period of stay without adjudication had expired is set aside and the application filed by the appellant for extension of stay order is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1146
Rejection of the application for registration under section 12AA - Held that:- The assessee is at the preliminary stage for carrying out the charitable object. The assessee claims that buildings were under construction for starting the educational institution. However, no material is available on record to show that the assessee has started the construction of the building. The fact remains is that the assessee has not applied for permission/approval from the concerned authority for starting the educational institution. Therefore, as of now no charitable activity is carried on. - society has not done any charitable work during the relevant period. Therefore, it does not entitle for registration under section 12AA of the Act. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court confirmed the liberty given by the learned single judge for filing a fresh application immediately after starting the charitable work. - assessee is not entitled for registration since no charitable activity was carried out. However, it is made clear that the assessee will be at liberty to file fresh application before the Commissioner as soon as the charitable activity, viz., the educational institution starts functioning. If such an application is filed, as observed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Service Society [2000 (9) TMI 47 - KERALA High Court], the Commissioner shall consider the same on merit. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1145
Disallowance of depreciation - depreciation on assets - Held that:- Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2015 (1) TMI 310 - ITAT CHENNAI] - No infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1144
Constitutional validity of restriction on input tax credit (ITC) when goods are sold below the purchase price - Constitutional validity of section 18(3A) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 inserted by Finance Act 7(iii) w.e.f. 9.3.2011 – Violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India - Whether sales made by him at lesser rates do not amount to sale at 'subsidized rates', falling foul to Section 18(3A) of the VAT Act, 2003 – Held that:- The entire arguments, put forward by the petitioner that he has not made sales at a price lower than the purchase price, has been advanced without looking into the reply filed by the petitioner on 17.6.2014 to the show cause notice dated 6.6.2014 given by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Bikaner, in which it was pleaded and argued that the goods were sold at a lesser price than the purchase price, in anticipation of getting quantity discount, or sales incentive, on achieving a particular sale figure or reaching the target, which cannot be treated as subsidized price - the assessee has not sold the goods at a price below the purchase price - The net amount of trading account has been arrived at, after making adjustments of discount, purchase returns and other direct expenses.
There is distinction between the scheme of tax on sale of goods both under the VAT regime and under the Sales Tax Act existing prior to that - Under the Sales Tax Act except a few items, all other goods were taxable at the point of first sale in the State - Therefore tax was levied and collected only from the first seller - Contrary to this, the scheme under the VAT regime is that the tax collected by the first seller is given as Input Tax Credit to the second seller, and the tax paid by the second seller is given as Input Tax Credit to the third seller and ultimately the entire tax is borne by the consumer - the tax paid on the value addition by a series of dealers is ultimately passed on to the consumer and dealers get reimbursement of the tax paid by them.
ITC is not a concession granted under the scheme of Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 - No set-off is given in respect of the tax paid by the appellant on the purchases of the raw material made by him outside the State of Maharashtra evidently for the reason that such tax is paid to such other States - While considering the provisions for grant of setting off under Rule 41 of Bombay Sales Tax Rules and observing that such set-off is a concession or indulgence and that it is open to the Legislature while granting concession to restrict or curtail the extent of entitlement as condition for availing the concession.
A person claiming benefit of exemption must show that he satisfies the eligibility criteria and for that purpose the provision must be strictly construed - If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be mandatorily complied with - when there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of a Statute, the Court exercising power of judicial review must be conscious of the limitation of judicial intervention, particularly, in matters relating to the legitimacy of the economic or fiscal legislation - while enacting fiscal legislation, the Legislature is entitled to a great deal of latitude - The Court would interfere only where a clear infraction of a constitutional provision is established - The burden is on the person, who attacks the constitutional validity of a statute, to establish clear transgression of constitutional principle.
Legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution have to be read in a broad and comprehensive sense to include all subsidiary and ancillary matters - an entry, which authorises the imposition of a tax, such as Entry 54 of List II, also authorises an enactment, which prevents the tax evasion or taking excess credit - Regulating the claim of Input Tax Credit is within the powers of legislative competence - The Legislature consciously enacted Section 18(3) and (3A) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, with an object of incorporating the time frame and conditionalities for availing the ITC - Prescribing such conditions for availing ITC is well within the legislative competence of the State - R.K. Garg vs. Union of India [1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME Court] - there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles - Laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater attitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc.
The legislature should be allowed some play in the joints and there is no straitjacket formula particularly in case of legislation dealing with economic matters and having regard to the nature of the problem required to be dealt with, greater play in the joins has to be allowed to the legislature - The Court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas, where fundamental human rights are involved - the word 'subsidize' would mean the price to be subsidized by the government, under any scheme - The word 'subsidize', in sub-section (3A) of Section 18, has not been used in a sense, in which the goods are sold on any concession, exemption, or subsidy, given by the State Government under any scheme - the constitutional validity of sub-section (3A) of Section 18 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 is upheld – Decided against petitioner.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1143
Petition for direction to be made for lifting the order of attachment of property or not - Direction to be made for quantification of the stamp duty to be paid - The transfer of the property and registration of the sale deed transferring the title in the property to be allowed or not - Validity of transaction u/s 47 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act – Held that:- There is no explicit provision made under the GVAT Act as is provided under the IInd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, however, it is a well settled law that in the event of any dispute in relation to the title of any property, it is the civil court which shall have a jurisdiction as already held in Tax Recovery Officer v. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade [1998 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - the suit property is a tenement, admeasuring 127.05 square metres, situated at Bhavnagar - The purchase was made by Mrs. Magiya on 29.06.1995 by a registered sale deed - tax dues of Mr. Deepak Magiya have been finalized somewhere in the month of October, 2009.
The contention raised by the revenue that Mrs. Jayshreeben Magiya would have no funds of her own, is also not acceptable as she also possibly can have her ‘Stridhan’ or can own property inherited from her father - the provision of section 3 of the Benami Transactions Act makes it obligatory on the part of the person to prove otherwise when such property is purchased in the name of the wife as legal presumption favours the wife and unmarried daughter - such presumption can be rebutted by the person who alleges by production of evidence or other material before the court, that the property was purchased for the benefit and interest of the person other than the wife and the unmarried daughter - unless the presumption gets rebutted by successfully producing cogent evidence that the suit property was purchased benami by the husband / father for his own benefit, such presumption would continue.
The property had been transferred in the name of the present petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on payment of due consideration and, this was done in absence of any charge, registered with the office of the Sub Registrar in respect of the said property - Prima facie, it shall have to be termed as the bona fide purchase of the immovable property for value without notice - in absence of any explicit provision under the GVAT Act and in the wake of the fact that the outstanding dues of Mr. Deepak Magiya, nearly to the tune of ₹ 5 crores, having been finalized somewhere in the year 2009 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 - serious question of limitation also would stare in the face of the respondent – the Court chooses not to adjudicate on disputed questions of title which shall have to be necessarily decided by the court of law in the civil suit rather than concluding on this aspect in the present petition - the respondents ae allowed to take recourse if permissible under law and for both the parties to argue all these aspects at an appropriate stage before appropriate forum – thus, the direction issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 for the attachment of the impugned property is set aside - respondent No.2 is also further directed to permit the execution of the sale deed in favour of the proposed purchaser – Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1142
Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 175 days - Held that:- Tribunal has committed an error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal and also committed an error by not considering the grounds set out in paragraph nos. 2 and 3. In paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay, the applicants have shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period. Thus we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause is shown by the original appellants applicants in the application for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, opportunity is required to be given to the petitioners to submit their case on merits before the Appellate Tribunal. - Order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1141
Valuation - Telephone connection service - telegraph authority - The respondent appointed M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) as an agent to market the TRAI approved Tariff Plans with respect to telephone connections services provided by it by means of various schemes floated by the agent in this regard. - These services were provided through Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology and could be availed by the subscribers only on a handset specially programmed and designed. - the agent of the respondent (i.e. M/s. RIL) was allowed to combine certain products, services and privileges offered by it. - Other than an amount of ₹ 14,400/- per subscriber, which was for rental and usage charges of telephone connection service, all other charges collected by the agent from the subscribers of the respondent were retained by the agent as 'club membership' and 'club privileges' charges. - Inclusion of amounts collected from its subscribers towards 'club membership' and 'club privileges' charges in value of taxable services.
Held that:- any service which has not been provided by telegraph authority and that have no relationship with connecting telephone apparatus is not covered under telephone connection service. In this case allegation against the respondent is that through their agent, they have provided additional service such as club membership and pioneer offer. The Revenue wants to include the value of club membership and club privilege charges in the value of service relating to telephone connection.
All the goods and services provided by the agents of the respondent are the goods and services that have been provided by a person other than the telegraph authority, hence one of the conditions of the definition of service of telephone connection is not fulfilled. On this ground alone the attempt to include the value of 'club membership' and 'club privileges' gets defeated.
Inclusion of charges on account of Deceptive advertisements practice - Held that:- The privilege at point (b) is one relating to the service of the telephone connection but its value had always been included in the value of the service provided by the respondent. The agents of the respondent were remitting ₹ 14,400/- per subscriber to the respondent. This amount was towards rent and usage charge of ₹ 400/- per month for 36 months. Out of the amount ₹ 400/-, an amount of ₹ 240/- was the rent of the service provided by the respondent and ₹ 160/- was towards the usage charges. Showing a paid service as a privilege of the DAP Club could at the worst be an alluring and illusory advertisement. Such an advertisement cannot change the real character of the service. The privilege at point (iii) free incoming calls, free unlimited SMS, free CLIP & call waiting service was also the part of Tariff Plan of the respondent. The agents of the respondent had shown it separately as a privilege of the DAP Club but it was part of the approved Tariff Plan of the respondent. The remedy against the deceptive advertisements is not under the Act. - Decided against Revenue.
Inclusion of value of telephone instrument - Held that:- The services relating to providing of the service of telephone connection is not only a transaction for providing a service but also involves sale of goods. - the allegation is that the handset is so designed that without it the service provided by the respondent could not have been be availed by their subscribers. The value of the telephone handset is discernable in this case and the sale tax has also been levied on such transactions. Inadequacy of the value on which the sale tax has been imposed cannot be the ground for inclusion of the value of goods in the value of the service. - Decided against Revenue.
Whether the amount of goods and services can be vivisected - Held that:- The agents have paid sale tax on the value declared by them in relation to the supply of goods. The remaining amounts are either for collection charges for financing of the scheme or for the privileges or services provided to the members of the DAP Club. In such a scenario, it is not correct to say that the transactions under which he agents sold the Tariff Plans along with their own goods and services cannot be vivisected and the entire value of such goods and services be added to the value of the services of the respondent. - Decided against Revenue.
Whether the respondents are liable to pay penalty on account of due service tax collected from the subscriber on fixed wireless service by way of adjustment from the security deposits. - Following decision of CCE & ST., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. reported in [2011 (9) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - as entire amount of service tax and interest has been paid by the respondent before issuance of the show cause notice on pointing out by the revenue, the penalty are not imposable. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1140
Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - Held that:- It is seen that though in respect of the order-in-original dated 15.02.2008, the department’s plea is that the same had been delivered to Shri Ramesh Kumar of the appellant company on 26.03.2009, no evidence in this regard, has been brought on record. Similarly, in respect of the order-in-original dated 13.03.2009, the department s plea is that the same was dispatched to the appellant by speed post on 26.07.2012. However, under Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the permitted mode of communication of the adjudication order is registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) and since the order was not dispatched by RPAD, it cannot be deemed to have been served on the appellant. Both these orders have been received by the appellant on 2.3.2013 and, therefore, the appeals have to be treated as having been filed in time and as such, the impugned order dismissing the appeals as time barred, without going into the merits of the case, is not correct. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and both these matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. - Delay condoned.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1139
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Manpower supply service - cleaning of the yard within the factory - weighment of sugar cane - cane area survey and sugar can development - Held that:- As regards cleaning of the yard within the factory, as per the provisions of the factories act provision of Section 11 of the Factories Act it is the responsibility of a manufacturer to keep the factory premises neat and clean, therefore, the cleaning of the factory has to be treated as activity in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the Cenvat credit in respect of this activity would be admissible. - As regards the weighment of sugar cane and its unloading at the factory, this activity has to be treated as activity in relation to manufacture of sugar and molasses. Therefore, I hold that Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of this activity also and the same has been wrongly denied.
As regards the cane area survey and sugar can development by educating the farmers and by other means, the purpose of this activity is to ensure supply of good quality sugar cane, which is a must for any sugar manufacturing business. In view of this, this activity has to be treated as having nexus with manufacturing business of the appellant - question of eligibility for Cenvat credit of the activities of sugar cane area survey and sugar cane development has to be seen on the basis as to whether these activities have nexus with the business of manufacture of sugar. In my view, while these activities may not have nexus with manufacture of sugar, these activities certainly have nexus with the business of manufacture of sugar, as the supply of good quality sugar cane with good sugar recovery is a must for the business of manufacture of sugar. Therefore, I hold that the Cenvat credit in respect of these activities would be admissible.
Any expenditure incurred by a manufacturer is deemed to be included in the price charged by him from his customers and therefore the manufacture is not required to prove that the expenses incurred by him on various inputs and input services used in the manufacture of the final product has been included in the price charged by him. - the impugned order is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1138
Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Held that:- Appellant have failed to produced required documents, accordingly the adjudicating authority has rejected the case on grounds of non-submissions of the documents and sans the same it could not be ascertained the vital aspects of the admissibility of the refund claim in accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, as amended. The appellant have not adduced any further documents to this stage of appeal in support of their claim of refund, in the circumstances, the admissibility of the claim is not ascertainable. I find that the adjudicating authority has decided the case not only after considering each and every facts of the case but also discussed the matter at length and correctly rejected the refund claim. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the adjudicating authority; as such the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
Admissibility of refund claims of the service tax paid under the impugned exemption notification is subject to production of certain documents and fulfilling prescribed conditions. First appellate authority has clearly given findings that appellant has not fulfilled the specified conditions by adducing required documentary evidences. I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the first appellate authority, as nothing new has been brought on record by the appellant that documents required and conditions prescribed are fulfilled. - Decided against assesse.
............
|
9911796707
