-
IT : Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - Reference to - Constitution of DRP at specified places - Order No. 1 (Click for detail)
-
IT : Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - General - Processing of returns of assessment year 2011-12 - Steps to clear backlog - Instruction No. 1 (Click for detail)
-
Finance Minister Holds Meeting with Representatives of Business and Trade as Part of Pre-Budget Consultations (Click for detail)
-
Mahindra Satyam gets attachment order from Income Tax Department (Click for detail)
-
ICAI proposes increased disclosure by listed cos (Click for detail)
-
Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2011 - Notified date from which provisions of said Act shall come into force –Notification No. S.O.190(E) (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (HC KARNATAKA), CEA NO. 83 OF 2009, JUDGEMENT DATE: 11th APRIL 2011 (In favour of assessee)
Brief fact of the case:
A. The assesse/respondent purchased the capital goods in the year 1998 and paid the excise duty and used the same in manufacturing of excisable goods. Utilised cenvat credit in respect of same against payment of duty on removal of finished goods.
B. The said capital goods were destroyed in a fire accident on 20.05.2003.
C. Thereafter, the assessee purchased new capital goods and put-forth a claim before the Insurance Company for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy taken. The Insurance Company reimbursed the amount to the assessee, which included the excise duty, which the assessee had paid on the capital goods.
D. On coming to know of the same, the Excise Department called upon the assessee to reverse the cenvat credit.
Held:
Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any right on the Excise Department to demand reversal of credit or default to pay the said amount.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Karnataka Government Insurance Department (K.G.I.D.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (HC KARNATAKA), WRIT PETITION NO. 23077 OF 2011 (CESTAT), JUDGEMENT DATE: 4th NOVEMBER 2011 (In favour of Revenue)
Brief fact of the case:
A. The assesse/petitioner is a government organisation engaged in General Insurance Business. It collected fees for insuring vehicles owned by Government Departments and commercial concerns and vehicles in which Government had financial interest and vehicles for purpose of which Government had advanced money.
B. The assesse/petitioner failed
I. to make an application for registration ,
II. to make the payment of service tax and
III. to furnish return in the prescribed form
in terms of provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
C. As per assesse/petitioner in terms of paragraph no. 2 of circular No. 89/7/2006-Service Tax, dated 18th December 2006, services provided by it were not taxable.
D. The department overruling said contention demanded service tax on the assessee.
Held:
Therefore according to the circular on which reliance is placed, the activity carried on by the petitioner viz., the insurance activity falls within that paragraph 3 and falls within the mischief of service tax and tax is leviable. The three authorities have concurrently held so and we do not see any infirmity in the order which calls for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
3. [Contribution by CA. Manoj Gupta, and contributor is available on Mobile No. 9899686676 / email-id: mgupta2803@gmail.com ]
A Useful Article on “Pre - shipment Credit”
(Please click here for article)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now