SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH
PART-II
List of updates from 16th March to 31st March
16th March
rajNoti1779
Rajasthan: Extension in date for furnishing of information by e-Commerce entity in Form EL-1, EL-2 and EL-3
apCir36
Andhra Pradesh: Registrations under VAT/CST/TOT/ APPT/APET/APLT - Post-Registrations advisory visits of business premises
jkCir01
Jammu & Kashmir: Clarification regarding deduction of sales tax at source under section 16C of the J&K GST Act, 1962
ceNoti22NT
Central Excise: Amendment to Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable and Other Goods) Rules, 2016 - Notify 16.03.2016 as the date from which the said rules will be effective - Requirement of submission of security for availing the benefit discontinued
cuNoti09AD
Customs: Levy definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of all kinds of plastic processing machines or injection moulding machines originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Philippines, Malaysia or Vietnam for a period of five years
cuNoti38NT
Customs: Tariff Notification in respect of Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Sliver
cuNoti39NT
Customs: Amendment to Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2016 - Notify 16.03.2016 as the date from which the said rules will be effective - Requirement of submission of security for availing the benefit discontinued
2016-VIL-142-KAR
HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 2(g) – Sale - leasing transactions - Section 5(2) – leasing of equipment after the import of the same from outside India - transaction in the course of import – Denial of exemption by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Act – ownership of goods during lease – indivisible link of the transaction as that of lessee or lessor - HELD - after Master Lease Agreement is entered into between the appellant and the customer, the relationship of the ownership of the goods to be imported is severed at the time when the goods are to be imported from the foreign country, in as much as, the customer is the owner and the petitioner has made the payment on and behalf of the owner of the goods. The aforesaid position is until the goods have crossed the customer frontier of the Country - appellant has not imported goods/equipments from foreign vendor but it is the end customer’s purchase order occasions the sale in the course of import and the same is completed after taking delivery of goods/equipments. This is the first transaction. The second being the novation of the imported goods by issuance of acceptance certificate & novation notice. Then only the Lease Schedule agreement is inked. Thus there does not exist any in severable link in the transactions effected by the appellant - the leasing transactions effected by the appellant is not in the course of import as there is no occasioning the movement of goods from the foreign vendor at the instance of the appellant and thereby leasing the same to end customer does not fall under the purview of 5(2) of the CST Act - the transactions are nothing but ‘sale’ falling under Section 2(29) of the KVAT Act 2003 and the turnovers qualifies as taxable turnover as per Section 2(34) of the KVAT Act and thus chargeable for VAT - petitioner is not entitled to exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST, 1956 – assessee appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-204-CESTAT-CHE-CU
NATIONAL FRUITS AGENCY Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), CHENNAI
Customs - Valuation under Rule 8 based on price of Country of Exportation - rejection of transaction value and loading of value under Rule 8 of CVR – enhancement of value under Rule (8) as per the parallel set of invoices recovered by the officers of the Consulate General of India (CGI), U.S.A. – HELD - the value of imported goods shall be the value at the time of importation to India i.e. when the goods reaches Customs barriers - when the price of similar or identical goods are same price and it was accepted by the Customs in all major Custom Houses, there is no justification for taking recourse to Rule (8) of CVR and to adopt the price of Country of Exportation - Department has failed to prove as to how they have arrived at the conclusion that there is undervaluation since there is no material on record to show that the Department has followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules to arrive at the conclusion regarding the valuation - The Transaction value of imported goods as declared by the appellants in the Customs Invoices and Bills of Entry is accepted - demand of differential duty is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-202-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD (PFY DIVISION) Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-SURAT-I
Central Excise – inter-unit transfer of credit while holding a single R.C. – maintenance of single consolidated Cenvat Account/PLA for the purpose of discharging duties for clearance for home consumption during the period 15.04.2005 to 22.09.2009 – notice for disallowance and recovery of cenvat credit – HELD - the Company manufactures the goods falling under CH 54 and has more than one premise and they applied for single registration. By Order dated 28.9.2003 and 28.7.2004, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs allowed a single R.C. for three units and extended the facility of common PLA and Cenvat account - such orders would be in force, till the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was implemented and new R.Cs. were issued by the authority. The Assessee cannot discontinue the maintenance of common PLA/Cenvat Account on its own, unless three separate R.Cs. are issued as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) - the findings of the AA that as the Assessee applied for separate registration on 15.4.2005 and from that date three Divisions would be considered separately registered as three separate factories is against the provisions of the law and facts of the case - the assessee rightly utilized the Cenvat Credit transferred by DT units, for clearance of the goods for home consumption during the period April 2005 to Sept. 2009 as the Assessee was holding single registration certificate during the said material period. Accordingly, the demand of Cenvat Credit alongwith interest and penalties are set aside – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-203-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI–I Vs M/s DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) PVT LTD
Service Tax – ‘Associate Enterprises' transactions – reflection in S.T.3 Returns as per provisions of Section 67 of the FA, Act and Rule 6(2)(a) of Service Tax Rules – failure to account for the fees in respective months - delay in payment of service tax - demand of interest and penalties – provisional entry & final entry - HELD - the so called provisional entries were made with a specific description of transaction. The Explanation (c) of Section 67 does not make any distinction between the provisional entries and the final entries made subsequently. As per the plain reading of the explanation the moment first time any entry is made irrespective whether it is provisional or final entry the same will be covered under the debit entries as specified under the explanation. Therefore there is no scope in the said explanation to give different treatment to the provisional entries or final entry - the service tax became due in accordance with the date of provisional entries made first time by the respondent in their books of account. Therefore, there is a delay in payment of service tax which attracts interest hence the demand of interest is sustainable - issue involved is in the nature of interpretation of valuation section - penalties under Section 76 & 77 are not imposable – assessee appeal partly allowed
Guest Article
Ease of doing business vis-à-vis Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2016: An Analysis - By Uma Lohray
cuCir11
Customs: Clarification regarding other persons (co-noticees) used in sub-section (2) & sub-section (6) of the Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962
odiNoti3939
Odisha: Delegation of Power
Goa Budget 2016-17 - Budget Speech
17th March
2016-VIL-144-DEL
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 2 (g) (iv), Section 3 - inter-state sale – agreement transfer of right to use the equipment - lease agreement occasioning movement of goods from Maharashtra to Delhi - situs of sale - denial of C Form on the ground that since the situs of the sale was Delhi and the agreement transferring the right to use the equipment was executed at New Delhi the transaction could not be said to be an inter-state sale – HELD - It is only when the goods are available in the State and the agreement for transfer of the property in goods from the seller to the buyer is executed at that place it can be said that the situs of the sale is where the agreement is entered into. However, in the present case, there is a clear finding that the goods did move from Maharashtra to Delhi and were used in the distribution of electricity - The equipment was sent from Maharashtra to Delhi for use by the Appellant (Lessee) in Delhi and this movement was occasioned by the lease agreement which was entered into in Delhi - There can be no doubt that the lease agreement resulted in the movement of the goods from one State of another, and therefore, answers description of the inter-State trade under Section 3 (a) of the CST Act - The VAT Officer is directed to issue ‘C’ Forms as requested by the Appellant – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-145-GOA-CE
CCCE&ST, GOA Vs AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION OF GOA LIMITED
Central Excise - Refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – remand of duty paid on inputs used - activity of building the bus bodies on the chassis supplied and cleared the chassis on payment of duty - Refund claim rejected on the ground that the appellants are not eligible to file refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004, as the appellants are neither manufacturer of the final products which were cleared for export under Bond nor they are manufacturers of the final product cleared for home consumption – HELD – the contention of the Revenue that the Respondent were not manufacturers, came to be rejected by Tribunal. It was also found that the refund was being claimed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final products which were exported – also, the assessee were not making any claim in respect of credit availed on input services but only on credit availed on inputs – There is no violation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004 as sought to be contended by revenue - no merit in revenue appeal and dismissed
2016-VIL-206-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s SIGMA ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION P. LTD Vs CCE, PUNE-I
Central Excise – EOU Unit - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit – rejection of refund claims on the ground that the services on which credit has been taken do not qualify as ‘input service’ in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - disallowance of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on services namely catering, CHA, Chartered Accountant, insurance premium etc. – HELD - the definition of input service as contained in rule 2(l) very much covers all the input services on which Cenvat Credit is claimed and all the services are directly or indirectly related to business - The appellants have claimed refund of service tax paid on the strength of said invoices and these facts are undisputed - the appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on the said input services used for manufacture and export of final products - the object of the government is to export the goods and services and not the taxes. If the refund of service tax paid on input services is not allowed then the said taxes would have to be built in the cost of the final products and thus it would lead to export of taxes which are against the policy of the government – impugned order set aside and refund is allowed
2016-VIL-146-MAD-CU
M/s APM TERMINALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Customs - recovery of demurrage - dispute is between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for recovery of demurrage – writ petition seeking permission to auction uncleared cargo – HELD - for recovery of demurrage. For this, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the 1st respondent - When there is a dispute with regard to demurrage charges, the same cannot be decided by this Court in the Writ Petition - when the 2nd respondent had paid the duty payable to the 1st respondent and the Dock officials had issued out of charge orders. The 1st respondent had rightly observed that once the customs duty was realized, the goods cannot be included in the Lot for fresh auction - the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra-distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. The petitioner cannot force the 1st respondent to conduct an auction so as to recover the demurrage charges from the 2nd respondent, even though the 1st respondent does not have any control over the goods - there is no merit in the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed
2016-VIL-143-GUJ-ST
M/s IWI CROGENIC VAPORIZATION SYSTEM (INDIA) PVT LTD Vs CCEC&ST, VADODARA-II
Service Tax – non-payment of service tax collected – Penalty under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and (2) – HELD - having collected such tax from the service recipients and having been registered in respect of such service, the assessee was required to pay service tax to the Excise Department. The assessee had not filed requisite periodical returns and the fact of non payment of service tax came to light of the Department only as a result of special investigation - assessee could not demonstrate the reasonable cause for not paying the tax, not even financial hardship - penalty upheld and assessee appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-205-CESTAT-HYD-ST
M/s CONEXANT SYSTEMS PVT LTD, HYDERABAD Vs CCE&ST, HYDERABAD-II
Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Input Services - activities relating to business – Information Technology Software Services - denial o f credit on all input services availed – HELD - By denying credit on all the input services, it seems to appear that the appellants has not availed any input service for providing output service during the relevant period, which is not possible - appellants have furnished invoices, Cenvat register and other document necessary to show the availment of credit - Circular 120/01/2010-ST dated 19-01-2010 specifically clarified that in the case of BPO/call centers the services like renting of premises, software technology services, telecom services, rent a cab services etc. would be needed for providing their output services efficiently and that such services would be eligible for credit – the view of the department that impugned services do not have nexus with the output services cannot be endorsed - impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
upNoti230
Uttar Pradesh: Exemption to sale of machinery operated by cent percent Bio Fuel
delNoti1671
Delhi: Extension in date for submission of Form GE-II
delNoti1658
Delhi: Extension in date for submission of Form CR-II
Punjab Budget 2016-17 - Budget Speech
cuNoti40NT
Customs: Kashipur District U.S. Nagar for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods
cuNoti41NT
Customs: Exchange Rate notification
18th March
dgftPN64
DGFT: Standard Input Output Norms under Chemical & Allied Product Group for export products
2016-VIL-147-GUJ
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs ESSAR STEEL LTD
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act – Section 73 – Appeal - Section 36 – Refund of pre-deposit subsequent to successful appeal - jurisdiction of Tribunal to issue directions of the refund of the amount deposited by the assessee by way of pre-deposit pursuant to the order passed by High court – HELD - the amount deposited by the respondent is in the nature of pre-deposit - The respondent having succeeded in the appeals whereby the Tribunal has held that there is no liability to pay tax, the State has no legal authority to hold on to the amount deposited by the respondent by way of pre-deposit for stay of recovery of the demand - the amount deposited by the respondent being in the nature of pre-deposit and not payment of tax under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, the amount deposited by it is bound to be refunded in view of the fact that the appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal – if a court has power to adjudicate, it also has power to enforce the same. Right to adjudicate would be incomplete in absence of power to execute - refund of the amount of pre-deposit is consequential of the orders of the Tribunal and the same has no connection with the appeals preferred by the petitioner before this court. As rightly submitted by the assessee, even if the orders of the Tribunal were to be stayed, the assessment orders would not spring into operation entitling the petitioner to recover the amount under the same. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot, in any manner, be said to come in conflict with any order that may be passed by the High Court in the appeals. Having regard to distinct nature of the proceedings before the High Court and before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal lacks propriety – Revenue appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-207-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s MAHARASHTRA POWER TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES PVT LTD Vs CCE, THANE-I
Central Excise - Cenvat credit – Capital goods - Admissibility of credit on Wires and Cables and on refractory - disallowance of credit on the ground that these are not Capital goods - demand of Cenvat credit, penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB – Chapter heading 85 and Chapter heading 69 – HELD - the wires and cables being covered under Chapter 85 is specified under sub clause (A)(i) of Clause (a) of Rule 2 of CCR, 2004 and refractory and refractory material the covered under sub clause (v) accordingly the appellant’s goods are undoubtedly falling under the definition of Capital goods, hence the credit cannot be denied – Raising of fresh issue raised first time by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was not raised in the show cause notice - it is settled law that new case cannot be made out after issuance of show cause notice and after passing the adjudication order - the impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-210-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s MRF LTD Vs CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, LTU
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit - re-export of defective imported inputs/capital goods – recovery of credit taken under Rule 3 (5) of the CCR at the time of re-export – HELD - in the Board’s circular No.283/117/96 dated 31.12.1996 it has been clearly stated that the credit availed on inputs which are re-exported as such under Bond need not be reversed - The subsequent Circular No.345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.08.2000 in para-8 clarified that there is no bar if the inputs or capital goods are removed as such from the factory for export under bond - the demand for the availment of cenvat credit which is alleged to be incorrect is unsustainable - The impugned orders are set aside and assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-208-CESTAT-MUM-CU
STANDARD CONDUITS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EP), MUMBAI
Customs - Refund of SAD paid on goods imported for consumption but subsequently sold on charging sales tax, service tax and VAT – denial of refund on the ground that refund was not shown as receivable in the first balance sheet at the time of filing the refund claim but subsequently introduced in the balance sheet – unjust enrichment – HELD - the revised balance sheets was filed with the Income Tax authorities and additional income tax paid on such balance sheet needs to be considered as an evidence in support of non-passing of the incidence of duty - in the revised balance sheet the amount of refund claim is indicated as “amount receivable” confirms that the appellant had paid the entire amount from their pocket on which refund is claimed - impugned orders are set aside and assessee appeals allowed
2016-VIL-209-CESTAT-DEL-ST
QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs CC, NEW DELHI
Service Tax – demand under Technical Inspection and Certification Agency - appellant contention that it is not providing technical testing and certification agency service inasmuch as it merely accredited / certified various organisations for the purpose of certifying various entities and granting certifications like ISO certifications and it was not providing any technical inspection and certification of any material, goods or immovable property – non-registration and non-payment of service tax – wilful suppression - HELD - certification by the appellant of any organisation as competent to assessee and certify bodies entities would at least require undertaking physical process of inspecting their processes, wherewithals and the equipments/ tools, if any, required for conducting such processes and of this actively clearly falls within the ambit of technical inspection and certification agency service, defined in Section 65(105)(108) / (109)(zzi) ibid – appellant provided “Technical Inspection and Certification Agency” service but was not guilty of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Therefore the extended period of limitation and mandatory penalty under Section 78 are not invocable
2016-VIL-211-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI Vs LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Service Tax - refund claim in respect of service tax credit on the input services used for providing Information Technology Services – non-registration of branch office - HELD - there is no dispute as to the fact that the respondent is providing Information Technology Services and the said services are exported. It is also undisputed that the input services are used for rendering such services - In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory refund cannot be denied – assessee appeal allowed
delCir41
Delhi: Instructions regarding sealing and de-sealing of the premises
assamNoti142
Assam: Entry Tax exemption in respect of anti TB medicines
assamNoti168
Assam: One time exemption to Arunodoy Construction Co. (P) Ltd
wbCir02
West Bengal: One-Day Registration for all dealers
Guest Article
Increase in limitation period for issuing SCN - Is this ‘Ease of doing Business!’
Karnataka Budget 2016-17: Budget Highlights
Karnataka Budget 2016-17: Budget Speech
Tamil Nadu Interim Budget 2016-17: Budget Speech
Maharashtra 2016-17: Budget Highlights
Maharashtra Budget 2016-17: Budget Speech
MahaBudgetAnalysis
Analysis of Maharashtra Budget 2016-17 [By Sunil Gabhawalla]
Odisha Budget 2016-17: Budget Highlights
Odisha Budget 2016-17: Budget Speech
goaNoti5642
Goa: Extension in period of assessment for the financial year 2012-13
mpVATbill2016
Madhya Pradesh VAT (Amendment) Bill, 2016 [in Hindi] - (Only for information purpose as it is copy of the Bill as presented/to be presented in State Assembly and it is yet to be enacted)
21st March
2016-VIL-148-GAU
M/s MUKESH CARRIERS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM
Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 – Transport of consignment of Motor Vehicle to Meghalaya through Assam - Failure to surrender the Transit Pass duly endorsed by the Exit Check Gate within 30 days of the first endorsement at the entry check gate of Assam - deemed sale presumption under Section 46(15)(d) of the Act – submission of proof of delivery by transporter-appellant – HELD - tax becomes payable only when a taxable transaction is carried out but under the legal presumption a deemed transaction can also be made liable to tax under the AGST Act. But the issue is whether the legal presumption of deemed sale drawn by the authorities under Section 46(15)(d) of the AGST Act, was rebutted adequately by the petitioners, through the materials produced by them along with their representation - there was no application of mind to determine whether the petitioners have successfully rebutted the legal presumption drawn by the taxation authorities and the assessment to tax is supported only on the basis of the legal presumption – Matter remanded to the authorities for a fresh revisional exercise – Appeal allowed by remand
2016-VIL-149-GUJ
OM SAI ASSOCIATES Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act - Section 68 – Power of Commercial Tax Officer to issue seizure memo - officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier – HELD - CTO is not officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 68 of the GVAT Act and hence, is not empowered to take any action under the said provision - the action taken by the CTO in issuing the seizure memo under section 68(4)(b) of the GVAT Act is without any authority of law and therefore, lacks jurisdiction - impugned seizure memo is quashed and set aside – assessee petition allowed
2016-VIL-216-CESTAT-BLR-CU
INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE
Customs - Refusal of permission for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into Export Promotion Scheme Bills - technical problems in the EDI system – HELD - It was not the fault of the exporter-appellant that their DEEC shipping bills were not accepted by the EDI system (ICES) of Customs, it was the technical problem in EDI system of Customs because of which export promotion shipping bills could not be generated - Thereafter exporter-appellant’s CHA made full attempts to file DEEC shipping bills manually but again these attempts were not successful. Consequently the appellant was forced to export said five consignments, which had already been in the port, under five Free Shipping Bills as the consignments were of the goods, Human Rabies Vaccine requiring storage at very low temperature - when the facts on record especially the documents and declarations available at the time of export support the case of the appellant and when the fault lies with the EDI system of the Customs, the request of the appellant for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEEC/Export Promotion Scheme Shipping Bills is genuine and needs acceptance – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-213-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
Central Excise – Cenvat credit – Rule 57S of erstwhile CER, 1944 - whether capital goods, if removed, without installation and without putting to use, as waste and scrap will attract duty equal to the amount of credit taken or the duty on the transaction value of the machine sold as waste and scrap – wrong availment of modvat – Penalty - HELD - when the removal of capital goods is without being used is different from the capital goods sold as waste and scrap that means the term sale of capital goods as waste and scrap then the excise duty shall be payable on the transaction value of the waste and scrap - when the capital goods is not installed or has not been used its clearance will fall under the clause (a) of Sub-Rule (2) and not under Clause (c) of Rule 57S - appellant is required to pay excise duty on the capital goods cleared without being used in terms of clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57S of the CER, 1944 - penalties under Rule 57U of the erstwhile CER, 1944 r/w Section 38A of the CEA, 1944 is upheld – assessee appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-212-CESTAT-MUM-CE
PETALS ENGINEERS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA
Central Excise – Valuation – includability of integration and commissioning charges received for installation, erection and commissioning of the machines at customer site - HELD - Integration and commissioning is an independent activity which can be performed either by the appellant or any out side agency, charges recovered towards integration and commissioning charges is not related to the sale of the goods but it is for independent and distinct identified activity. Once the goods are fully manufactured and cleared from the factory activity of erection - installation carried out subsequently the charges therefore cannot be included in the assessable value – installation / erection / commissioning charges at site of the customer is not includable in the assessable value on the same analogy and grounds, the charges for supervising such erection and commission also cannot be included in the assessable value – Assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-214-CESTAT-CHE-ST
AMRL HITECH CITY LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, TIRUNELVELI
Service Tax – SEZ Developer – Refund – Legal services, Company Secretary Service, Chartered Accountant service, Security service etc – HELD – the facts of the case, bills and remittances of service tax clearly confirms that appellant being a developer has to fight legal case - Since the case relates to land acquisition the input services in dispute were used as authorized operation of SEZ as a developer - appellants are eligible for refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notfn No.12/2003 as amended on the input services i.e. Company Secretary Service, Chartered Accountant service , Security service, Legal Consultancy service, ITS service, GTA service – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-215-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s NARMADA JACKSON HOTEL Vs C.C.E., BHOPAL
Service Tax – Mandap Keeper service - assessable value – includability of catering charges (cost of buffet dinners) id assessable value - benefit of abatement – assessee contention that in its bills it had separately shown the hall rent and the charges for buffet dinners and has already paid service tax under ‘Mandap Keeper’ service on the hall rent and was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST as far as the charges for buffet dinners were concerned – HELD - The taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (m) ibid states that “it includes the facilities provided or to be provided to the client in relation to such use and also the services if any provided or to be provided as a caterer”. Thus, the catering provided by the appellant along with the service of use of mandap is clearly covered under the scope of the taxable service – Assessee appeal dismissed
March Summary
Summary for the 1st fortnight of March
delNoti93
Delhi: Composition Scheme for dealer who is not making sale other than ready to eat foods and non-alcoholic beverages
cbecPR
CBEC: Press Release on levy of excise duty on articles of jewellery
22nd March
Haryana Budget 2016-17 - Budget Speech
upNoti430
Uttar Pradesh: Exemption to sale of goods to District Disaster Relief Committee
harMemo398
Haryana: Instructions regarding service of Notice in form N-2 for initiating proceedings U/s 15(2) of the HVAT Act
ceCir1021
Central Excise: Imposition of Central Excise duty on jewellery - Constitution of sub-committee of the High Level Committee
dgftPN65
DGFT: Error correction in Focus Product Scheme (FPS) for export of “Other -Brakes and Servo Brakes and Part thereof” in Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014
dgftPN66
DGFT: Allocation of additional quantity for export of sugar to USA under Tariff Rate Quota
2016-VIL-151-DEL
M/s GULLU'S Vs COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES
Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - inspection of assessee premises – collect tax at the time of conducting a survey or an inspection – Department Circular on Guidelines for officials / officers of Trade & Taxes Department during conduct of survey/inspection – HELD - the Court is not satisfied with the wording of the Department Circular as it still leaves it open to VAT Authorities to collect tax either through the e-payment mode or the physical offline mode at the time of conducting a survey or an inspection of the business premises of a dealer – The Court expected a categorical instruction to be issued by the Commissioner, Trade & Taxes (CTT). It is disappointing to note that that has not been done - the Court is constrained to again issue the directions, which it is made clear, will be complied with by the CTT himself and the CTT will not delegate this task to any other officer including any Special Commissioner who may be otherwise authorised to do so - The CTT will make it clear in the instruction that it is not permissible for an officer of the DT&T to collect cheque or cash at the time of survey, inspection or sealing proceedings under threat of sealing the premises under Section 60 of the DVAT Act – writ petition allowed
2016-VIL-152-BOM
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs M/s KINGS FURNITURE WORKS
Maharashtra Sales Tax – limitation – revenue petition of condonation of delay – HELD - We cannot put a premium on utter negligence, complete callousness and carelessness on the part of the Government officials. They cannot expect discretionary and equitable relief from the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the explanation that they furnish is wholly unacceptable. It is time that Government realises that it is not a special litigant. If its officials, including the advocates appointed, are not working, it must proceed against them and take action. It cannot just request the court to condone the lapses and inefficiency or equally dishonesty and corruption. If the court of law is expected to render justice expeditiously, then, it should not be burdened with cases which have been brought belatedly and without any satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay. That these are Government matters and the court cannot condone the delay in movement of files, some inaction and negligence on the part of the Government officials, merely because larger public interest is at stake - the explanation for the delay does not inspire confidence. It does not demonstrate that the Government or the Department concerned was vigilant, serious and attentive and did its best to protect the public revenue – writ petition dismissed
2016-VIL-217-CESTAT-BLR-CE
HYVA INDIA PVT LTD Vs CCEC&ST, BANGALORE-I
Central Excise – Valuation - fabrication of bodies of vehicles and mounting the same on chassis under the procedure of job work – inclusion of mounting chares in assessable value - Revenue contention that the mounting activity is part and parcel of the manufacturing activity in terms of the provisions of Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 87 – suppression of facts – Limitation – HELD - the appellant was discharging service tax liability on the mounting charges by treating the same as service. The Revenue was happily accepting the same and at no point of time any objection was raised - Revenue, probably, was also under the bonafide impression that mounting charges are not required to be added in the assessable value of their final product and as such was accepting the appellant’s style of payment of central excise duty and service tax - having paid the duty on the value of the bodies only and having paid the service tax on the mounting charges, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of any malafide - The entire exercise seems to be revenue neutral - demand would falling within the limitation period is confirmed – penalty set aside – assessee appeal partly allowed
2016-VIL-219-CESTAT-MUM-CE
NASHIK FORGE PVT LTD Vs CCE, NASHIK
Central Excise – payment of duty only through Cenvat account – SCN for violation of Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 which require the payment of duty only through account current – HELD – the Rule 8(3A) has been struck down by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Madras and Punjab & Haryana in various judgments - Since the rule under which the entire proceedings have been initiated have been declared unconstitutional, no liability arises under the said Rules - the impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-218-CESTAT-MUM-CU
KINSHIP AGENCY PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I), NHAVA SHEVA
Customs – Penalty - appellant only acted as CHA and once the main notices have settled the matter by approaching the Settlement Commission, the appellant who is a co-noticee, cannot be penalized - the appellant is not liable to penalty as the co-noticees have not been imposed any penalty by the Settlement Commission and, therefore, the appellant is also not liable to pay the penalty – appeal allowed
2016-VIL-150-GUJ-CU
M/s MULCHAND M ZAVERI Vs UNION OF INDIA
Customs – rejection of petitioners' request for cross-examination of witnesses - discretion of Adjudicating Authority – cross-examination of witnesses before filing the defence reply - HELD - The only reasons given by the adjudicating authority for denying such cross examination are that the witnesses have not retracted their statements and these statements made by the Customs authority which are admissible in evidence stand valid - Merely because, the concerned witnesses have not retracted their statements would not be a ground to deny cross examination. In fact, this reason does not even take care of the evidence of the expert witnesses - The adjudicating authority entered into an arena of presumption while refusing such request on such ground - The correct stage for granting such cross examination would be when the adjudicating authority records the evidence which can start only after the petitioners file their reply. No statutory provisions in support the petitioners insistence of cross-examination of witnesses being granted before filing the defence reply – appeal partly allowed
2016-VIL-220-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s VANAZ ENGINEERS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III
Service Tax – Work contract – discharge of Service Tax liability under the category of Erection, Commissioning and Installation service - refund claim of the amount of Service Tax paid for the period pre 01.06.2007 – HELD – the appellant have also discharged appropriate VAT, which would mean that the work executed was works contract for all practical purposes. Appellant mistaken discharged the service tax liability on 33% of the contract value while he was not required to do so - the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. will apply in favour of the appellant - Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law that prior to 01.06.2007, Service Tax liability will not arise when works contract is executed, under any other services - The impugned order is set aside and the assessee appeal is allowed
2016-VIL-221-CESTAT-MUM-ST
KALYANI ENTERPRISES Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM
Service Tax – Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service – Supply of manpower and receiving labour and service charges – non-registration and non-payment of service tax – interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act 1994 - penalty of 200% of the tax due – HELD - when there are malafides proved on the part of the appellant-assessee, they would not be entitled to take the benefit of provisions of Section 73(3)(4) of Finance Act 1994 - presently penalty provided by Section 78 of the Finance Act is equal to 100% of the liability of amount of service tax. It is to be noted that earlier penalty was up to twice the amount of service tax liability, which was the maximum limit only - penalty of 200% of the Service Tax due, which was the maximum fixed under the then law, can be imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act 1994; the penalty of 200% of the tax due is not rightly justified for the present facts – penalty reduced to 100% of tax dues – assessee appeal partly allowed
Guest Article
Infrastructure cess - Hopes of Auto Industry Shattered!
harNoti7
Haryana Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Amendment of Rule 42 - Approval of Refund
delCir42
Delhi: Assessment of Enforcement Survey/Seizure Cases by respective ward officers
delCir43
Delhi: Sealing and de-sealing of the premises
23rd March
2016-VIL-153-PAT
AZAD TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR
Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Section 9 of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - violation of Section 56(4) of BVAT Act – movement of goods – FIR for not carrying of Form D-IX or Form X-VII or deficient in details in Form D-IX / D-VII or Forms were forged / interpolated with details with intention to cheat the State Government of the revenue – Criminal proceedings - First Information Report - Investigation under Indian Penal Code – Whether the State Police has the jurisdiction to entertain, institute and investigate offences under the VAT Act especially in view of Section 86(2)(a) r/w Section 83 of the VAT Act – HELD - The claim of the petitioners that the Bureau of Investigation was vested with the powers of the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station does not stand substantiated in absence of any specific notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers as provided under section 51(3)(i) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 or under Section 86(2)(a) of the VAT Act - The powers that have been vested with the Bureau of Investigation is the power to investigate offences as provided under Section 49 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the corresponding Section 81 of the VAT Act but in absence of any power of Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station having been vested with the Bureau of Investigation it would not be possible for the Bureau of Investigation to inquire into the offences that would constitute an offence both under the Indian Penal Code as well as the VAT Act - in absence of a power of an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station having been vested with the Bureau of Investigation or the designated officer under Section 86(2)(a) and Section 83(2) of the VAT Act, respectively, it is not open to the petitioners to allege lack of jurisdiction in the police to investigate the offence - A mere fact that VAT Act speaks of investigation by the Bureau of Investigation or an officer as designated under Section 83 of the VAT Act and that it does not refer to any investigation by the Police would thus oust the jurisdiction of Police is not an argument that would pass the muster of the test of legality - the argument for quashing the First Information Reports on account of lack of jurisdiction in the police authorities to investigate an offence - which is punishable both under the VAT Act and under the IPC - as the special Act (VAT Act) ousts the jurisdiction of CrPC does not commend to this Court. The reason is simple, there is neither any conflict between the provisions of two statutes nor does there appears to be any attempt to cover the filed of CrPC with regard to investigation. In fact, to the contrary, where there was even an avenue available to cover the said field of grant of police powers to the authorities/ Bureau of Investigation - under the VAT Act has voluntarily and consciously been not taken by the State Government - Thus the institution of the FIR cannot be urged to be an abuse of the judicial process – Writ application dismissed
2016-VIL-224-CESTAT-BLR-CU
M/s TATA CERAMICS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN
Customs – goods manufactured in SEZ damaged by flood - auction of damaged goods for realizing salvage value – revaluation and enhancement in value by Revenue under Rule 6 on the basis of similar transaction(s) – demand for differential duty - HELD - The Department has not been able to prove that how did the appellant not observe the right procedure, when the procedure adopted by the appellant was approved by the Insurance Company - not correct for the Department to say that there has to be value refixed when there is no reasonable basis for this refixation of the value. The Customs contention that earlier similar goods were auctioned and that fetched different value cannot be accepted when the damage in the goods in question are of different degree when compared with the goods which were auctioned earlier - The appellant’s action in treating the value fetched during the auction as cum-value is acceptable and cannot be questioned under the prevailing law of Customs – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-223-CESTAT-AHM-CE
CCE&ST, VAPI Vs M/s CASTROL INDIA LIMITED
Central Excise - damaged/rejected goods - Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 – reversal of Central Excise duty equivalent to actual credit availed – demand for duty equal to the duty taken as credit on the inputs cleared as damaged / rejected prior to use in manufacture of final product – revenue in appeal - HELD – Once the input is rejected during manufacturing process and sold at the transaction value under Section 4 of the CE Act, the dept. has no case for asking the reversal of credit equal to the cenvat credit availed on the input. It is immaterial if the shape & size as well as classification of the input remains the same after rejection. It is different matter if the said rejected items are used as such for different purpose. These are considered to be waste as these are not qualified as per the quality standard - the conclusions drawn by the first appellate authority is correct - impugned order is upheld – revenue appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-222-CESTAT-HYD-ST
M/s MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PVT LTD Vs CCCE&ST HYDERABAD-IV & OTHERS
Service Tax – Information Technology Software Services – Cenvat Credit - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - Section 11B - refund of the accumulated credit of Service Tax – denial of refund – power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter - HELD - Commissioner (A) does not have the power to remand the matter - The output service of the assessee which is would get the benefit of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - the benefit of refund under Rule 5 of CCR cannot be denied - for the purpose of refund under Section 11B, the relevant date is either the date of payment of service tax for input services or the date of receipt of consideration (FICR) for export of services and not the date when the services were provided - the refund claims are not time-barred - when the definition of input services had a wide ambit as the definition included the words 'activities relating to business'. The services if necessary for business of the appellant would qualify as input services - Denial of refund claim due to lack of one to one co-relation between the inward remittances and export documents is not justified – assessee appeal allowed
Guest Article
Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016: Clouds of doubt on success quotient
nagaNoti43
Nagaland: Exemption to projects under DDUGJY (Dean Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojna)
nagaNoti23
Nagaland Entry Tax Act - Exemption to Motor Vehicles
chhgNoti19
Chhattisgarh: Extension in time for disposal of assessment cases of 2011-12 and 2012-13
cbecInst390
CBEC: Review under Section 129A (2) or Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35B (2) or Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 86 (2A) or Section 86 (2) of Finance Act, 1994
27th March
megNoti57
Meghalaya: Revision in the rate of tax on Motor Spirit including petrol
megNoti58
Meghalaya: Withdrawal of exemption granted to Oil Companies and retail outlets on sales of motor spirit
megNoti51
Maghalaya: Revision in the rate of tax on Liquor including Foreign liquor
mpBill5
Madhya Pradesh VAT (Amendment) Bill, 2016 - Copy of the Bill as presented/to be presented in State Legislative Assembly and it is yet to be enacted and made effective (Only for information purpose)
dgftTN21
DGFT: Reconstitution of Board of Trade (BoT)
28th March
2016-VIL-156-BOM
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs M/s KLIP NAIL CARE
Bombay Sales Tax Act - section 2(11) – Dealer - Sole proprietorship firm – validity of notice issued in Trade Name instead of sole proprietress – Tribunal order holding, the assessment proceedings were vitiated as the notice could not have been issued in the trade name, but should have been issued in the name of the proprietress and such a invalid notice, could not be a foundation of the proceedings - Revenue in appeal – HELD - procedural rules and matters of Form cannot be elevated to such a status and position as would make every part or prescription thereof mandatory and incapable of substantial compliance. Such provisions do not mandate strict compliance and are capable of substantial compliance. It cannot be that the trade name is mentioned and not that of the sole proprietor or proprietress that the proceedings can be flawed to such an extent as to term them as incurable - absence of notice by such mis-description would have to be established and proved by the dealer, else it cannot be said that the proceedings suffer from a fundamental or incurable defect and therefore non-est. The proceedings and the orders therein cannot be termed as void ab initio or null from inception. The orders also cannot be termed as null and void given the nature of the defect alleged - the Tribunal was in error in allowing the appeals on this ground alone - notice addressed to the sole proprietary firm can be in a trade name or in the name of the sole proprietor but merely because it is addressed in the former name does not mean that no notice was issued – the Second Appeals are restored and revenue appeal allowed
2016-VIL-154-GUJ
NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED Vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (APPEALS)
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – assessment – Branch Transfer - inter-state sales – non-submission of C Form and F Form - attachment of petitioner Bank Account during pendency of appeal – HELD - petitioner appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of CST Act is pending before the first appellate authority - once the first appellate authority has granted stay against recovery, in the absence of any changed circumstances having been brought to its notice, there was no justification for not extending the stay - Without there being any valid reason, the appellate authority is not justified in not extending the stay granted by it - The stay granted by the first respondent is ordered to continue till the final disposal of the appeal – assessee petition allowed
2016-VIL-155-AP-CU
B. HIMA BINDU Vs COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-II
Customs & Central Excise – Section 129-E – pre-deposit – Expression ‘undue hardship to such person’ and ‘safeguard the interests of the Revenue’ - right of appeal against the duty demanded or penalty levied - import of dense wavelength division multiplex equipment (DWDM), and software CDs - determining the assessable value - software not embedded, but supplied separately - demanding differential duty on the value attributable to the so called embedded software - Fraud by disguising the software embedded in the imported equipment as customised software – appeal against Tribunal holding, when the software is embedded in the equipment itself and not supplied separately, the value of such embedded software is required to be included in determining the assessable value of the equipment and ordered for pre-deposit entire amount of differential duty - modus operandi because of stiff competition in the tendering process of BSNL - substantial question of law – HELD - though the software was embedded in the imported equipment, blank and useless CDs were imported to mislead the authorities into believing that these CDs contained customised software to be loaded into the imported equipment later - Mere appreciation, of facts or the documentary evidence cannot be held to give rise to a substantial question of law. Where the Tribunal is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference - As the direction to pre-deposit customs duty and interest thereon by the CESTAT represents the amounts due to the Revenue, which the appellants have allegedly evaded payment of, the orders impugned in these appeals cannot be faulted as it only safeguarded the interests of revenue - If a fact finding authority comes to a conclusion, within the prescribed parameters, honestly and bonafide, the fact that another authority, be it the Supreme Court or the High Court, may have a different perspective of that question would not give rise to a substantial question of law - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit order - when Section 129-E made it obligatory on an appellant to deposit the duty or penalty pending the appeal, and if a party did not comply either with the main sub-section or with any order passed under the proviso, the appellate authority was fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1952 - the contention, that Section 129-E of the Customs Act did not give any power to the CESTAT to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the requirements regarding deposit of duty, interest or penalty, would have meant that the appeal would have to be kept on file for ever, even when the requirements of Section 129-E was not complied with. The logical consequence of failure to comply with Section 129-E was rejection of the appeal on that ground - All the appeals fail, and are accordingly dismissed
2016-VIL-228-CESTAT-DEL-CU
C.C. (IMPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI Vs M/s KIMIA BIOSCIENCES (P) LTD
Customs - Import of Bulk drugs - benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus - Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cust at Sl. No.147A and 108A respectively - Revenue in appeal – HELD - the ‘bulk drugs’ imported by the appellants were specifically mentioned in Customs Notification No. 21/02 and are liable to be considered as ‘drugs’ mentioned at 80(A). It is beyond doubt that ‘bulk drugs’ are also ‘drugs’ – no infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
2016-VIL-226-CESTAT-MUM-CE
SETO TEKNOLOG P. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II
Central Excise – Cenvat credit - proper document for taking credit – credit on the basis of courier bill of entry – limitation – HELD - Appellants have been disclosing in their regular return regarding availing of Cenvat Credit on courier bill of entry and the department has also conducted the audit from time to time of the records of the appellant and has never raised the objection of availing the Cenvat Credit on the basis of courier bill of entry – nothing to shows that there is a wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules with intent to evade payment of duty - the entire demand is time barred and the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of courier bill of entry – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-229-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III
Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - Technical Consultancy Services – utilisation of services of foreign architect for designing and planning of commercial building – demand under 'Reverse Charge Mechanism' as per provision of Section 66(A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Service Tax liability on the Income Tax amount deducted as TDS – HELD – for the purpose of discharge of Service Tax for the service provided from outside India, the value is equal to the actual consideration charged for the services provided or to be provided – in this case the appellant had discharged the consideration as raised in the said invoice/bill. There is nothing on record that indicates that the appellant had recovered that amount of Income Tax paid by them from the service provider from outside India and any other material to hold that this amount is paid is consideration for services received from service provider - the plain reading of Section 67 with Rule 7 of Service Tax Valuation Rules, the service tax liability needs to be discharged on amounts which have been billed by the service provider - the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside – assessee appeal is allowed
2016-VIL-225-CESTAT-MUM-ST
SACHINS IMPEX Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR
Service Tax – Cenvat credit - tour operator and air travel agent service - air travel by the employees for participation in exhibitions and seminars - ‘input service’ - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 – HELD - The appellant is a manufacturing unit and according to the definition of the input, the use of the phrase ‘such as’ will mean inclusion of an activity which is of a kind as of the illustration - activities specified after the phrase ‘such as’ are only illustrations and examples and not exhaustive. Therefore, an activity other than those illustrated but related to business will also get covered under the definition of input service – Cenvat credit allowed - the impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
Guest Article
Construction Services provided to IIT exempt even though Government does not hold 90% or more equity/control in it
wbOrder253
West Bengal: Authorization to work as Officer posted in Central Section
FCP2303
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
Delhi Budget 2016-17 - Budget Speech
Delhi Budget 2016-17 - Budget Highlights
delCir1800
Delhi: Regarding VAT deduction at source in respect of works contracts
29th March
2016-VIL-160-CHG
CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, RAIPUR
Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act – liability for entry tax with regard to limestone mined at Tandwa transmitted to Kundru and then brought back to Tandwa for manufacture of cement - liability for entry tax on plant and machinery - appeal against Single Judge order - Article 227 of the Constitution – HELD - Once the Appellant raised the issue with regard to entry tax liability on limestone, the Revisional authority was required to decide the same on merits. Declining of jurisdiction on the reason that it was not raised before the Appellate authority amounts to abdication of the Revisional jurisdiction. The power under Section 62 of the Act being very wide, resort to unsustainable technicalities was not justified - The Revisional authority ought to have applied its mind to the precedent sought to be relied upon and then given its finding with regard to its applicability or non-applicability as the case may be - On the question of payment of entry tax under the head plant and machinery except for incidental items, Appellant contentions could not have been ignored by the Revisional authority without discussion regarding its applicability or non-applicability - There is no invariable principle that merely because an order has been affirmed by three consecutive authorities, the matter cannot be re-examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution especially when the facts are not in dispute and the aggrieved relies upon a precedent even if it be of the administrative authorities which is required to be discussed and considered - appeal allowed by remand
2016-VIL-159-KAR
M/s TIRUPATHI TRADERS Vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALORE
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - sales return – rejection of claim of sales returns and revision under Section 9[2] of the CST Act on the ground that the sales returns were effected beyond the time stipulated and the appellant did not produce the document in support of the sales returns – HELD – The Commissioner discarded the transport receipt produced by the appellant for dispatch of the goods by buyer to appellant on the ground that there are no endorsements of check post - The most pertinent and important aspect is that if the person to whom the goods were sold has confirmed that the goods were dispatched by way of return of goods, the said aspect could not have been ignored or in any case the application of mind on the part of the Commissioner was required before reaching the conclusion that the say of the appellant for return of the sales cannot be accepted - matter remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration – assessee appeal allowed by remand
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2016-VIL-158-MAD-CE
M/s RAGHAV INDUSTRIES LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA
Central Excise - Simultaneous benefit of higher rate of drawback and rebate of the duty paid on the export goods - exported the finished goods – rebate claim – rejection of rebate on ground that the petitioners have utilised cenvat credit and availed the benefit of higher rate of drawback, which amounts to double benefit – applicability of M/s Spentex Industries Ltd case - HELD - After clearing the goods on payment of duty under claim for rebate, the petitioners should not have claimed drawback for the central excise and service tax portions, before claiming rebate of duty paid and appellant should have paid back the drawback amount availed before claiming rebate. When this was not done, availing both the benefits would certainly result in double benefit – the benefits claimed by the petitioners are covered under two different statutes i.e. Drawback Rules 1995 under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other under Rule 18 of the CER, 2002. Since the issue, is covered under two different statutes, the Apex Court judgment in M/s Spentex Industries Ltd is not applicable in this case – As per the proviso to Rule 3 of the Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995, the petitioner is not entitled to claim both the rebates - assessee petition dismissed
2016-VIL-227-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s SHREE SIDHBALI ISPAT LTD Vs CCE, NAGPUR
Central Excise – Clandestine removal - Manufacturing of iron and steel products namely sponge iron, M.S. Ingots and T.M.T/C.T.D. Bars – shortage due to weighment variations, burning loss variations and communication gap between staff of finished yard and staff of dispatch department - clearance of excisable goods through the parallel invoices – imposition of penalty – HELD - the best evidence which was easily available and steering in the investigators on the face have been either not examined or, if examined, the results of such examination was not convenient or supporting the revenue’s case. The evidence relied upon in the notice create a lot of suspicion against the conduct of the appellant but as such these evidences all of which are recovered from third party’s premises by themselves cannot prove the case of clandestine removal against the appellant unless their contents are corroborated by independent evidence, such corroborative evidence is totally missing. There is no answer available to explain the absence of statements of most relevant persons such as the consignees/buyers shown in the invoices/ LRs/ Truck Destination Register/ Books of Accounts etc. The transporters, who actually transported the goods, have also not been questioned. In short, the investigation has failed to establish the case of clandestine removal – since the demand itself is not sustainable hence the question of interest and penalties does not arise – the impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal allowed
CUSTOMS SECTION
2016-VIL-230-CESTAT-CHE-CU
ASHOK ENTERPRISES Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), CHENNAI
Customs – violation of condition of exemption notification - benefit of exemption Notification No.30/97 dt. 1.4.1997 and 48/99 dt. 29.4.99 availed for import of duty-free materials under Advance Licence as Actual user manufacturer-exporter - appellants imported S.S. coils/sheets with actual user conditions and goods imported are not used in the manufacture of export goods - demand and penalty – HELD - Since the appellant declared themselves as actual user manufacturer-exporter, it is mandatory to maintain the production records as per the Hand Book of Policy. Instead of producing valid evidences to prove that they had utilized the imported S.S coils/sheets in the manufacture of resultant product in their declared factory address, the appellants chose to take shelter under JDGFT's order that they have fulfilled export obligation - Mere discharge of export obligation per se cannot put an end and customs authorities has right to initiate proceedings against the importer for breach of condition of the exemption notifications. It is clearly established that the appellants had not utilised the quantity of S.S. coils imported under the DEEC Advance Licences and cleared duty free under the said exemption notification and failed to comply the condition of the notification and the adjudicating authority rightly denied the benefit of exemption notification - the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of exemption notifications 38/97, 51/2000 and 48/99 as amended on the goods imported under the said advance licences - demand of customs duty and interest and confiscation, and penalty ordered by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is upheld – assessee appeal dismissed
2016-VIL-233-CESTAT-MUM-CU
ESSFO IMPEX PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI
Customs – valuation of ball valves and check valves – rejection of transaction value on the ground that prices of the brass/zinc valves were less than the LME price of valves and scrap of brass and zinc – HELD – in the absence of any testing the methodology adopted by the adjudicating authority for redetermination of the value of the imported consignments is totally on presumption and surmises - The only finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is that the said values are unrealistic and ridiculously low. To arrive at such finding the adjudicating authority has not brought on record any contemporaneous import of the same items – the conclusion that there was under-valuation as the appellant did not produce the manufacturer’s invoice nor catalogue is not in consonance with the law, as these consignments were cleared by the same department when the bills of entries were filed and the documents as produced were accepted as correct at that time. If the authorities had entertained any doubt, they should have called for these documents at the time of clearance of the consignments - In the absence of any evidence it is not possible to accept that the transaction value and the declared value were not actual transaction value - the ratio of Shibani Engineering Systems judgement may not apply as it is on record that the appellant herein produced details of contemporaneous imports which was not considered by the adjudicating authority - that the impugned orders are set aside and assessee appeals are allowed
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2016-VIL-231-CESTAT-KOL-ST
M/s MAGMA FINCORP LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA
Service Tax - financing of assets by way of operating lease, loan and financial agreements - Financial leasing - Equipment leasing - Hire Purchase Agreements - Operating lease agreements - Hire Purchase Finance Agreements - Loan against Hypothecation - gain on securitization – demand under banking and other financial services – HELD - The terms of the contract relating to all the agreements claimed to be financial lease, equipment lease, operating lease, hire purchase agreement, hire purchase finance agreements and loan cum hypothecation agreements be analysed / examined along with other relevant documents / evidences to ascertain the true nature of transaction between the appellant and its customers so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the said services fall within the scope of “Banking & other Financial services” - The securitization agreements/contracts between the appellant and its customer banks be examined / scrutinized to ascertain whether the transaction is that of a sale or a service, accordingly, its deductibility from the gross taxable value or otherwise - In the event various services rendered are held to be taxable, detail findings and reasons in computing the value either from RBI statements or from any other source for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 be recorded - The transactions between the Appellant and clients (banks) be scrutinized to ascertain the collection commission received by the Appellant whether would fall under the scope of Business Auxiliary service (BAS) - The Appellant be allowed to furnish further evidences in support of their claim that demand of Rs.93.00 lakh is the result of computation error, the amount of Rs. 69,52,945/- is collected as contingency deposit and not service tax - The demand on penal interest and termination charges are liable to be dropped and the transaction relating to collection of ‘Management Fees’ be scrutinized and reasons be recorded for its leviablity or otherwise to service tax under the category of ‘Banking & other Financial services’ – Appeal disposed
2016-VIL-232-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD Vs HIMALAYA TYRES
Service Tax – Litigation Policy – non-withdrawal of appeal where the disputed amount is below the threshold limit – ARs non-co-operation in dismissal of such cases in terms of parameters contained in Litigation Policy – HELD - Authorized Representatives may plead and act for the Commissioner but they are appointed by the Central Government. They, therefore, are not expected to act in a manner that is directly against the expressed and articulated intent of the Central Government. Indeed, it is highly improbable that the Commissioner for whom they are pleading or acting would go so far as to suborn a stated intent of the Government and require them to offer non-co-operation in disposal of a matter listed before the Tribunal - Chief Commissioner (AR) is advised to convey the gravity of the statutory conferment supra and ensure that all his officers are aware of the consequences of transgression. The Tribunal is not subject to any departmental authority and is not required to submit to the decisions of a departmental authority in the discharge of its function. To presume that disposal of Departmental appeal by Tribunal will have await the application for its withdrawal is also a patent disregard of the authority conferred on the Tribunal by law – we record our objections to the submission in the strongest possible terms and would bring this to the notice of the Central Government and the CBEC as a glaring example of the inertia with which policy prescriptions are dealt with by the field formations - copy of this order is to be transmitted to the Secretary, DoR and Chairman, CBEC
cuNoti24
Customs: Amendment in notification No. 12/2012-Customs, so as to continue BCD @ 25% on import of wheat beyond 31.03.2016 upto 30.06.2016 and retain BCD @ 40% on import of Ghee Butter and Butteroil, beyond 31.03.2016 for a period upto 30.09.2016
cuCir12
Customs: Prevention of use of non-genuine transferable duty credit scrips or DFIA (duty free import authorizations)
Guest Column
Mobile Accessories Turns Expensive
hpNoti711
Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Amendment of Rule 61-B
hpNoti72011
Himachal Pradesh: Notify classes of dealers for the purpose of making compulsory e-declaration in Form VAT-XXVI before the dispatch of taxable goods in the course of intra-state transactions of goods
30th March
2016-VIL-14-SC
M/s CASIO INDIA CO. PVT LTD Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 8(2A) and Section 5 - inter-state sale - Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - Rule 28A(2)(n) and Rules (4)(c) - Exemption from the levy of the CST on inter-state sales of the goods manufactured by an “exempted unit”, even by any other dealer – eligibility of the appellant, not holding exemption certificate, to exemption under Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995, on the ground that the goods had been purchased from seller who possesses a valid exemption certificate - notional sales tax liability – HELD - The submission of revenue that inter-state sales by a third party, who had procured the goods from the eligible industrial unit, such trade or commerce would not be exempted, suffers from incorrect appreciation and understanding of the purport and objective behind Rule 28A and the notification - There is no stipulation that only the first sale or the sale by the eligible industrial unit in Inter State or Trade would be exempt - a proviso is generally added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment, and the proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. Further, except for instances dealt with in the proviso, the same should not be used for interpreting the main provision/enactment, so as to exclude something by implication - proviso should not be given a greater or more significant role in interpretation of the main part of the notification, except as carving out an exception - The proviso would not scuttle or negate the main provision by holding that the first transaction by the eligible manufacturing dealer in the course by way of inter-state sale would be exempt but if the inter-state sale is made by trader/purchaser, the same would not be exempt. That will not be the correct understanding of the proviso. Giving over due and extended implied interpretation to the proviso in the notification will nullify and unreasonably restrict the general and plain words of the main notification. Such construction is not warranted – assessee is eligible for benefit of notification dated 04.09.1995 – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-234-CESTAT-MUM-ST
RELIANCE ADA GROUP PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-IV
Service Tax - Rule 5(2) of the Valuation Rules - Support Services of Business or Commerce - cost sharing arrangement with Participating Group Companies - expenses / cost incurred by the Appellant in procuring the specified services on behalf of the Participating Group Companies separately charged to and reimbursed by the Participating Group Companies – demand under Business Support Services – HELD - The amount recovered by the Appellant from the Participating Group Companies is precisely the same as has been paid by the Appellant to the third party vendors/service providers. The goods or services procured by the Appellant for the use of participating Group Company are not availed by the Appellant for its own use or consumption, and the Appellant has no function or existence other than as Trustee / Manager (agent) of the Participating Group Companies cost sharing arrangement - the Appellant completely satisfies the conditions of a ‘Pure Agent' as set out in Rule 5(2) of the Valuation Rules - the amount so recovered by the Appellant is in the capacity of a Pure Agent and thus the same cannot be subjected to the Service tax – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-157-BOM-CE
M/s STANDARD DRUM AND BARREL MANUFACTURING CO Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II
Central Excise - manufacturing Mild Steel Drums on job work basis for HPCL - removal of drums without payment of duty - substantial questions of law – Tribunal order – HELD - Once the job work was the activity undertaken and there was a denial of the liability to pay duty, the least that is expected of Tribunal is to consider this aspect in detail. That it is factual but necessarily requires and merits its consideration goes without saying, else, a party like the Appellant has no opportunity to satisfy any authority that the adjudication is not in accordance with law and that there is a perversity in the order-in-original. If the Tribunal does not wish to examine this, then, its refusal raises a substantial question of law - By not considering the record in its entirety and referring to some isolated event that too in an incomplete manner leads us to the only conclusion that the Tribunal has failed to perform its duty and in accordance with law – Tribunal order set aside and appeal allowed by remand
sikNoti113
Sikkim: Revision in rate of tax on Motor Spirit (Petrol) and High Speed Diesel
sikNoti114
Sikkim: Enhancement in rate of tax on goods specified in Schedule VI
nagaNoti128
Nagaland: Compulsory filing of e-Return under VAT w.e.f 1st April,2016
cuNoti01SG
Customs [Safeguard] - Levy of safeguard duty on imports of Hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy and other alloy Steel in coils of a width of 600 mm or more for a period of two years and six months
cuNoti10AD
Customs [Anti-Dumping] - Levy of definitive anti-dumping duty on 2-Ethyl Hexanol, originating in, or exported from the European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Chinese Taipei and USA for a period of five years
cuNoti11AD
Customs [Anti-Dumping] - Levy of definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of Tyre Curing Presses also known as Tyre Vulcanisers or Rubber Processing Machineries for tyres, excluding Six Day Light Curing Press for curing bi-cycle tyres originating in, or exported from China PR for a period of five years
cuNoti12AD
Customs [Anti-Dumping] - Levy of provisional anti-dumping duty on Glazed/Unglazed Porcelain/Vitrified tiles in polished or unpolished finish with less than 3% water absorption, originating in, or exported from the China PR for a period not exceeding six months
stCir191
Service Tax - Regarding extension of e-payment deadline and of banking hours
Guest Article
Delhi Budget 2016 Highlights: Focus on education, infrastructure; watches, shoes become cheaper
31st March
2016-VIL-161-CAL
MAPLE EXPORTS PVT LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SALES TAXES CENTRAL REFUND UNIT
West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Validity of Section 22(12)(db) – export of goods - refund of the input tax credit – denial of refund on the basis of Section 22(12)(db) and on the ground of non-existent seller’s sellers – HELD - Special Commissioner rejected the claim of refund on the ground that the persons from whom seller claimed to have purchased the goods may not have existed. However, the relevant provision under Section 22 (12)(db) does not oblige a dealer or an exporter seeking input tax credit thereunder to take any responsibility for his seller’s sellers - the Special Commissioner took irrelevant considerations into account in passing the impugned order – Since the vires of Section 22(12)(db) was not required to be addressed for the purpose of the present adjudication, such issue is left open - the impugned order is set aside and assessee petition allowed by remand
2016-VIL-15-SC-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Vs M/s GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD
Central Excise – Valuation - Whether Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 (as substituted w.e.f. 01.07.2000) and the definition of "Transaction Value" in Clause (d) of sub-Section (3) of Section 4 are subject to Section 3 of the Act - Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, despite being interlinked, operate in different fields and what is their real scope and ambit - Whether the concept of "Transaction Value" makes any material departure from the deemed normal price concept of the erstwhile Section 4(1)(a) of the Act – contradictory views in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Acer Ltd – HELD - though in the backdrop of different factual scenarios, two Coordinate Benches have taken what would appear to be contrary views with regard to purport and effect and the interconnection between Section 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views expressed in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Acer Ltd - the questions referred should receive consideration of a Larger Bench
mahaNotiCR31
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Amendment in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘C’
tnAct3of2016
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016 - Amendment of Section 19
stNoti21
Service Tax: Point of Taxation (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Amendment in Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011
dgftPN67
DGFT: Authorization of Textiles Committee to issue Certificate of Origin under various Free Trade Agreements/Preferential Trade Agreements
cuNoti25
Customs: Exemption from customs duty on cut/polished diamonds imported for testing/certification
cuNoti42NT
Customs: Notification is in respect of Kakrawah LCS under Section 7 of Customs Act, 1962
2016-VIL-236-CESTAT-DEL-CU
M/s DEEP EXPORTS Vs CC, NEW DELHI
Customs - bonafideness of appellant in buying and utilising the REP licences which were obtained based on fabricated forged documents by others - remand directions to find out the effect of whether or not the appellant has a knowledge of fraud by which the licence was obtained from the licensing authority by the transferer – HELD - in the absence of evidence that the transferee have not acted bonafide or was aware of the fraud committed by the original holder of licence, duty cannot be recovered from them - duty cannot be demanded from the transferers as in such situation where the licences were genuine but obtained by fraudulent representation they can be made only voidable and imports which happen prior to the cancellation cannot be held as improper - duty demand confirmed by the impugned order cannot be sustained and set aside – assessee appeal allowed
2016-VIL-235-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s LAVINO KAPUR COTTONS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II
Service Tax - refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Export Oriented Unit - benefit of Notification No. 05/2006 dated 14.03.2006 - inputs services on which credit was availed and utilised for manufacturing of goods for export – HELD - no dispute that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on such input services; that they are not in a position to utilise the CENVAT credit for discharge of duty liability for the clearance made to home consumption - the first appellate authority had sanctioned the refund claims holding categorically in favour of the appellant. It was not left to the adjudicating authority to revisit the issue of rejection of the three refund claims which have been sanctioned by the higher judicial authority. In the absence of any appeal against such an order, learned Senior Counsel was correct in stating that the adjudicating authority has not followed settled principle of judicial discipline; and has entered further voyage to reject the refund claim by issuance another show-cause notice, which is beyond his jurisdiction – otherwise also the benefit of Notification No. 5/2006 - CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 is applicable for the period prior to Notification dated 14.03.2006 - refund claims which were rejected by both the lower authorities are to be allowed – Assessee appeal allowed
mahaNotiCR14
Maharashtra: Local Body Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2015 - Extension in date for completing the assessment of returns
GOA NOTIFICATIONS
goaNoti134: Amendment in Goa VAT Schedules ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’
goaNoti17: Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 - Amendment in Schedule-I
goaNoti18: Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 - Regarding entry 'Motor vehicles (all kinds) and parts & accessories' and 'Light motor vehicles'
Guest Article
Refunds Claimed in respect of Self Assessed Bills of Entry: Need for Clarification - By Uma Lohray
upCir1516079
Uttar Pradesh: Regarding depositing tax without late fee
karNotiFD34
Karnataka Budget Notification
mahaNotiCR51
Maharashtra: Amendments to the Composition Schemes under Section 42 of MVAT Act
Chhattisgarh Notifications
chhgNoti26, chhgNoti27, chhgNoti28, chhgNoti29, chhgNoti30, chhgNoti31 & chhgNoti32 - VAT Notifications
chhgNoti23, chhgNoti24, chhgNoti33, chhgNoti34 & chhgNoti35 - Entry Tax Notifications
chhgNoti25 & chhgNoti36 - Central Sales Tax Notifications
Rajasthan Notifications
|
Notification under section 45 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-210 dated 08-03-2016 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-264 |
|
Notification under section 9 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(28)FD/Tax/2010-Pt.-III-192 dated 24-02-2015 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-263 |
|
Notification under section 9 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, regarding exemption from tax on yarn |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-262 |
|
Notification under section 9 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(23)FD/Tax/2015-212 dated 09-03-2015 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-261 |
|
Notification under section 3(1) of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(23)FD/Tax/2015-211 dated 09-03-2015 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-260 |
|
Notification under section 51A of RVAT Act, 2003, regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(16)FD/Tax/2009-116 dated 21-01-2016 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-259 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(63)FD/Tax/2005-39 dated 06-05-2006 (Composition scheme for Saraffa dealers, 2006) |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-258 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in notification no. F.12(63)FD/Tax/2005-37 dated 06-05-2006 (Composition scheme for Gems and Stones, 2006) |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-257 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in Schedule VI appended to RVAT Act, 2003 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-256 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in Schedule V appended to RVAT Act, 2003 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-255 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in Schedule IV appended to RVAT Act, 2003 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-254 |
|
Notification under section 8(3) of RVAT Act, 2003, regarding exemption from payment of tax payable by dealers having license for retail sale of country liquor |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-253 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in Schedule II appended to RVAT Act, 2003 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-252 |
|
Notification regarding amendment in Schedule I appended to RVAT Act, 2003 |
F.12(11)FD/Tax/2016-251 |