|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1733 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1635
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- In this year the assessee earned dividend income much higher than the earlier year which is why taking into consideration the entire gamut of the matter, AO applied the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. However, we find from records that the interest to the tune needs to be deleted in view of the particular fact that the own fund of the assessee exceeds investment. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that such investment was made out of the own fund of the assessee.
Disallowance of administrative expenditure - Under the specific circumstances when the AO has failed to establish the nexus that investment was made out on interest bearing funds disallowance towards administrative expenditure is not permissible. We find the fact of the case before us and that of the judgment cited upon is similarly situated and in the absence of any changed facts of the case, we do not find any reason to deviate from the same in confirming the estimated disallowance to the tune of ₹ 1,50,000/- as made by the Learned CIT(A) which is not permissible and therefore, bad in law. Thus the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, we delete such addition made by the Learned CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal is thus allowed.
Disallowance of interest @12% - Interest free advances to three parties on which no interest was charged - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own [2018 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] case we find no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the first appellate authority so far as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the appeals fails and accordingly dismissed.
We find no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the first appellate authority so far as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the appeals fails and accordingly dismissed.
Deduction u/s 80IA on a much higher amount than to earlier years - right of amalgamating company to claim deduction - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] relevant legal provision has already been elaborated by the Ld. CIT(A) in his findings that as per the provisions of section 80IA(12) when any undertaking of an Indian Company which is entitled to deduction under this section is transferred before the expiry of the period specified in this section to another Indian Company then as per clause (b) the provision of this section shall apply to the amalgamated Company as they would have applied to the amalgamating Company if the amalgamation had not taken place and the provisions of subsection (12) would only apply if the amalgamating Company was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. It is demonstrated from the above facts and circumstances that the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on presumption basis that addition was old plant and machinery without bringing on record evidence to substantiate that specified machinery was purchased by Shanti processor Ltd and the assessing officer has also failed to disproved the material fact that similar claim was allowed to the assessee in the assessment year 2009-10 on fulfilling of all the conditions. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1634
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - application of turnover filter - HELD THAT:- As in this case, the Tribunal has approved the applicability of turnover filter of 1/10th or 10 times of the turnover of the tested party. In holding so, the Tribunal has followed the binding judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Acusis Software India P. Ltd. [2018 (8) TMI 1885 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT- thus we hold that the two comparables CG-VAK Software Exports Limited and Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited should be excluded by applying the turnover filter because the turnover of CG-VAK Software Exports Limited is less than 1/10th of the assessee company’s turnover and the turnover of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is more than 10 times of assessee company’s turnover.
The turnover of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is said to be ₹ 3,609.32 Crores and hence, it is more than 10 times of the turnover of assessee company of ₹ 234.38 Crores. By applying the turnover filter, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude these two comparables from the final list. In view of this, we feel that other arguments in respect of exclusion of these two comparables are not required to be discussed and decided.
As assessee is engaged in the provision of software development services to its AEs, thus companies functinally disimilar with that of assessee need to deselected from final list.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1633
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee suo moto made disallowance - HELD THAT:- The issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Greenland Infracon Pvt Ltd [2018 (11) TMI 1415 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] section 14A of the Act can be triggered only if assessee seeks to square off expenditure against the income which does not form part of total income under the Act and Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment years.No potency in the argument laid on behalf of the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed error in granting total relief in the matter of disallowance u/s 14A. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(A) in granting relief under s.14A on account suo moto disallowance by the assessee and thereby granting relief higher than claimed in the return of income cannot be faulted in law. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1632
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - compliance with the terms of settlement or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Mr. Kapil Arora and rest of the Allottees are allowed to withdraw the application under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code' with liberty to pray for revival and continuation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Debtor' - 'Morpheus Developers Private Limited' if the Terms of Settlement' is violated; in case the Terms of Settlement' is not complied with in its letter and spirit and it will also be open to file a petition for contempt proceedings and for action in accordance with law against the Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor'.
Fee of the 'Interim Resolution Process/Resolution Process and cost of resolution process - HELD THAT:- The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority, Principal Bench, New Delhi to determine the claim and fix the fee payable to the 'Interim Resolution Professional' and present 'Resolution Professional' and resolution cost payable to one or other IRP/RP. On such determination, the amount is to be paid by the 'Corporate Debtor' - 'Morpheus Developers Private Limited' within the period as may be prescribed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1631
Seeking directions to approve the resolution plan - section 30(6) and 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 R/w Regulations 39(4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), R/w Rule 11 of NCLT rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:-
-
2019 (6) TMI 1630
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal was instituted beyond period of 90 days, beyond the period of maximum extendable period by the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate delay in the institution of the petition. The averment in the petition is that there is no delay or laches in instituting this petition. Therefore, the petitioner, far from acknowledging the delay and explaining the same, does not even admit that there is any delay or laches. This is an additional ground for dismissing this petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1629
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12AA - proof of charitable activity u/s 2(15) - denial of registration by the Ld. CIT is that in the absence of Balance sheet, Income Expenditure, Receipts & Payments accounts, thus difficult to verify genuineness and nature of activities - assessee trust was further asked to provide a rationale why registration should be granted in the absence of any apparent charitable activity being pursued - HELD THAT:- In our view, the trust that at the time of filing application for registration was un-doubtly at nascent stage and has not carried out any activity therefore, one can not expect from the trust to do activity of the charity immediately.
As at the time of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is required to see the objects of the trust or institutions and genuineness of its activities, however, if we come to the instant case, then it is not disputed that the trust was formed and created only on 22.01.2015 and immediately within one year of its creation, the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act has been filed on 30.11.2015 which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 26/05/2016 so it is not in controversy that the assessee trust at the time of applying the registration was at nascent stage, therefore, could not carry out any activity.
Opinion at the time of disposal of application, the Ld. CIT(E) in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution can call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary and also empowered to make such enquiry as he may deem fit necessary in this behalf , secondly that after satisfying himself about the object of the trust or institution and the genuineness of the activities, he shall pass the order in writing either to register or refusing to register the trust or institutions. In the instant case no activity was carried out therefore question of genuineness did not arise.
Finally in our considered opinion as at the time of applying the registration the assessee trust has not carried out many activities and even otherwise it cannot be expected so at the nascent stage, therefore, the assessee trust is entitled to get registration u/s 12AA of the Act from the date of application, hence, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the registration u/s 12A of the Act to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1628
Exemption u/s 11 - Grant of registration u/s 12A denial - CIT(E) rejected the application mainly on the ground that neither any reply has been submitted to the query raised nor any request been received for adjournment till the date of passing of the order - HELD THAT:- Ld. CIT(E) nowhere in the order has neither pointed out any defect in aims and objects of the society nor doubted the genuineness of the activity specificallyy.
No hesitation to hold that the Applicant Society is carrying out its activity according to its aims and objects specified in the MOA. As it is settled law that before deciding application u/s 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is to evaluate two requirements (i) objects of the Applicant Society (ii) genuineness of its activity which in the instant case are not in controversy, hence the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to grant the registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the Applicant Society - we clarify that the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to put condition if any found appropriate as per law and shall also be at liberty to withdraw/cancel the registration in the event of any discrepancy(s) and/or breach of any provisions of the Act in future. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1627
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- We observe that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 [2019 (4) TMI 1286 - ITAT PUNE] wherein it has been categorically held by the Co-ordinate Pune Bench that BEML Limited being a Government Company even without going into the merits of the functional test of BEML Limited, it cannot be considered as a comparable to that with the assessee since Government Companies operate entirely in different controlled environment, customers are different, raw material suppliers are different, profit margins are different and would not operate in a free competitive environment.
Capacity adjustment by recommending a method without justifying the reliability of the method - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S PETRO ARALDITE P. LTD. [2013 (8) TMI 403 - ITAT MUMBAI] we find this issue should be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the precedent in existence on this issue and make the adjustment in any after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Non-availability of authentic bifurcation of the transactions between the AE and Non-AE - inappropriate computation of transfer pricing adjustment on the total turnover of the assessee from manufacturing operations instead of adjustments, if any only on the value of international transactions pertaining to manufacturing operations - HELD THAT:- Transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to the value of the international transactions. Since this is a case of import transactions, we agree with the assessee and direct that the transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to the value of the international transactions. Hence, this objection of the assessee is accepted.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1626
Nature of receipt - Credit to capital reserve - Addition holding that profit arising on account of forfeiture of shares is capital receipt in nature - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition .That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) deleting the aforesaid additions.
Interest on unsecured loan and interest on Others – TDS and Sales Tax - HELD THAT:- Interest expense on the delayed payment of service tax is allowable deduction -Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance of interest paid being Interest on Unsecured Loans and interest on Others – TDS and Sales Tax - Hence, ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- The said issue of the Revenue is squarely covered by the judgment of HOLCIM INDIA P. LTD. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that in the absence of any tax free income, the corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for making disallowance u/s. 14A - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemnivest vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vl, [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received during the relevant previous year. Therefore, in view of above, the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D is not sustainable.
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - assessee’s failure to deposit employees’ contribution towards statutory ESI and PF within the due date - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is no longer reintegra. If the assessee pays PF and ESI contribution within the time of filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, it would be sufficient compliance and no disallowance is attracted.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1625
Applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) - amount was released as grant and latter it was treated as loan in terms of G.Odepreciation on the assets acquired out of the amount granted by the Government of Tamilnadu, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department - CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by treating the impugned receipt in question as interest free loan and allowing the depreciation claim against assets acquired from the said receipt despite the Tamil Nadu Government G.O. dated 18.07.2005 classifying it as Gran - HELD THAT:- The amount was received from Government of Tamil Nadu originally in the form of grant and subsequently it was classified as interest free loan vide G.O. (Ms) No.22, dated 03.02.2016. Therefore, this amount cannot be treated as grant attracting Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in findings of the ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1624
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - HELD THAT:- Addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain - HELD THAT:- As relying on Sanjib Kumar Patwari (HUF) [2019 (5) TMI 1670 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein as considered the issue relating to LTCG in the scrip / share of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee therefore we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1623
Advance ruling application - Income taxability in India - taxability of payments to be made by Perfetti India for the costs to be allocated by the applicant under the service agreement - DTAA between India and the USA - Applicant had relied on the provisions of article 12(5)(b) of the DTAA to canvass that in the absence of a "make available" condition, the payments would not partake of the character of "fees for technical services" and further in the absence of any permanent establishment (PE) (in terms of article 5 of the DTAA) of the applicant, such payments would not be taxable in India - HELD THAT:- As services rendered under the service agreement when read with TTKLA, fall within the purview of article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC as such services "are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 4 of this article is received" by the applicant.
Whether the services also "make available" technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design, which enables the persons acquiring services to apply the technology contained therein? - The exercise to segregate the services which "make available" the technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, processes etc. and enable the recipient to apply the same without reference to the service provider and the advisory services which fail to fulfil this yardstick, will only be an academic exercise. As already mentioned earlier the service charge received by the applicant is taxable under article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC between India and the Netherlands and it is not necessary that the clause of article 12(5)(b) should also be simultaneously satisfied. The exercise to identify the services which satisfy the 'make available' clause would have been relevant, if the article 12(5)(a) would not have been found to be applicable.
The questions posed to us for a ruling are answered as under :
Question No. 1 : The payment to be made by Perfetti India for the cost to be allocated by the applicant is taxable under article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC between India and the Netherlands. Though some of the services are also taxable article 12(5)(b) of the DTAC, such services are not segregated as they are already taxable under article 12(5)(a).
Question No. 2 : As the answer to question No.1 is in affirmative, the payment made by Perfetti India would be chargeable to tax in India.
Question No. 3 : Perfetti India is liable to withhold taxes under section 195 of the Act on the payments to be made towards the costs to be allocated by the applicant.
Question No. 4 : As the applicant is liable to tax in India, it is required to file a tax return under the provisions of the Act and the transfer pricing provisions of sections 92 to 92F would be applicable in respect of the payment to be made by Perfetti India.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1622
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Motilal Oswal Private Equity Advisors Pvt. Ltd - HELD THAT:- As relying on NEW SILK ROUTE ADVISORS PVT. LTD [2018 (11) TMI 1769 - ITAT MUMBAI], TEMASEK HOLDINGS ADVISORS INDIA (P.) LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 1490 - ITAT MUMBAI], WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE ADVISORS PVT. LTD. [2018 (1) TMI 931 - ITAT MUMBAI], AVENUE ASIA ADVISORS PVT. LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1295 - DELHI HIGH COURT] therein conclude that Motilal Oswal Equity Advisors Pvt. ltd. cannot be treated as a comparable to the assessee.
Ladder up Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd: cannot be treated as a comparable to the assessee. See M/S. GUGGENHEIM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [2019 (2) TMI 1817 - ITAT MUMBAI], TATA ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–2 (3) ) (1) , MUMBAI [2019 (3) TMI 1883 - ITAT MUMBAI] and BLACKSTONE ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND VICE-VERSA [2018 (11) TMI 1732 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Cyber Media Research Ltd. (formerly IDC India Ltd.) was engaged in rendering market research and management consultancy services, and was also a premier provider of market intelligence and advisory services, therefore, it was functionally comparable to investment advisory providers. See NEW SILK ROUTE ADVISORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–7 (2) (2) , MUMBAI AND VICE-VERSA [2018 (11) TMI 1769 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Thus we direct the A.O to exclude the two comparables which were selected by the TPO viz. (i) Motilal Oswal Pvt. Equity Advisors Pvt. Ltd; and (ii) Ladder up Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. from the final list of the comparables. At the same time, the A.O is directed to include Cyber Media Research Ltd. (formerly IDC India Ltd.) in the final list of comparables.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1621
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee was not having any exempt income, therefore, in view of the decision of CHEMINVEST LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] CIT(A), no disallowance is warranted. Accordingly, we upheld the action of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A.
Expenditure incurred on gift / diwali puja expenses etc disallowed- HELD THAT:- This issue has also been decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, which has been followed by CIT(A). Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2006-07[2012 (11) TMI 1245 - ITAT MUMBAI] we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for confirming the disallowance, in both the years under consideration.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1620
Income accrued in India - subscription fees received by the assessee in India is neither in the nature of fees for technical services nor royalty, as defined under section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also under India Germany - HELD THAT:- In this view of the matter and consistent with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench [2019 (5) TMI 405 - ITAT MUMBAI], we are of the considered view that subscription fees received by the assessee from customers in India for allowing them to access online database created by the assessee in the name of ‘Reaxys’ and ‘EMBASE’ cannot be considered as fees for technical services or royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, nor under India Germany Tax Treaty. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we direct the AO to delete the additions made towards income computed @10% of total subscription fees as per India Germany Tax Treaty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1619
Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner was a Nominee Director of the Company at the time of offence or not - cheque given as security or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case not only completely self-contradictory stand has been taken, no offence had been made out which discloses the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance off offence under sections 406, 419, 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code - Here this Court is considering the existing liability of section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner though does not dispute that liability, it has spoken of a litigant, which has travelled civil litigation, which is pending and also litigation which has travelled to NCLT.
Even while accepting that the cheques, which are accepted and said to have been dishonored, and endorsement on the back side of the same being given towards the security with no dispute with regard to non-payment of electricity charges for all the three months being July, 2016 to September, 2016 and the dispute with regard to respondent complainant not having obtained captive power plant status and the letter of credit having been furnished by the company and where the same was, according to the required format of the bankers of respondent or where there was any other difficulty in getting the same negotiated are some of the questions, which are being disputed questions of facts and also being essentially the defence of the petitioner, shall need to go before the trial Court for it to adjudicate in accordance with law.
In such circumstances to prevent the abuse of process of law, the Court can step in and indulge. However, where the complaint filed is genuine, the High Court as per this decision is not to travel beyond the prescribed limit and sometimes on the very same set of facts, civil and criminal both proceedings are maintainable.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1618
Levy of penalty - payment of tax and penalty on being pointed out - renting of immovable property service - no suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this appeal is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. REFRESHMENT & ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIPUR [2018 (2) TMI 1412 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that though the said sub-section was basically with reference to renting of immovable property service, the main Section 80 is still available to the appellant considering that the tax liability under renting of immovable service was subject matter of various disputes, amendments, including retrospective amendment. As such, the penalty imposed on this service is waived invoking provisions of Section 80.
The penalty imposed in the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1617
CENVAT Credit - input services - commission paid to its agents situated in and outside India and appointed for the sale and marketing of their goods - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The issue stands already settled and decided in favour of the Respondent assessee. It is also seen that the First Appellate Authority has extended the benefit on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S ESSAR STEEL INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, SURAT-I [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Further, Tribunal in the case of M/S. STANLEY SEATING VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [2017 (1) TMI 972 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where it was held that the commission paid on sales becomes part of sales promotion resulting in increased manufacturing activity.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1616
CENVAT Credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - scope of 'exempted goods' - reversal of credit in terms of Rule 6 of the Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- The term ‘excisable goods’ has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act to mean the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. We find that the subject goods manufactured by the Appellant are not excisable goods - It is noted that in the case of SAHNI STRIPS & WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ROHTAK [2012 (12) TMI 469 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], wherein the dispute pertained to the period from December 2006 to May 2008 for recovery of 10% of the value of exempted goods as alleged by the Revenue.
The credit is not liable to be reversed in view of the provisions as were applicable during the period in dispute. The reversal of credit, if at all, will be applicable for the period post amendment made vide Notification no. 6/2015- C.E.(NT) dated 1st March, 2015 - As per the relevant chapter notes, the goods could not be said to be covered in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, which is the basic requirement to constitute ‘excisable goods’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(d) of the Act. For something to enjoy exemption under the Cenvat Credit Rules, it should first qualify as ‘excisable goods’ under the said Rules or the Central Excise Act and Central Excise Tariff. Goods that are outside the purview of Central Excise cannot be construed as ‘exempted goods’ for the purpose of this Act. Simply put, something can be exempted only if it was otherwise dutiable under a particular law.
Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules does not find application in the instant case and hence, the Appellant cannot be saddled with the duty demand - matter is being disposed on merits, limitation issue is not considered - appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
