News Update

Privacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanI-T- Rules of natural justice are contravened where notices of hearing are not sent to valid email addresses indicated by assessee & order passed in consequence thereto is invalidated : HCAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsI-T - Provisions of Section 148A clearly require that an assessee be granted opportunity of personal hearing & an order passed in non-compliance with this requirement stands vitiated: HCDeloitte LLP goes for restructuring to tamp down costsI-T - If no error is being found by AO qua acceptance and genuineness of transaction of assessee, then AO cannot initiate reopening, and if reopening is not permitted, then CIT cannot issue notice u/s 263: ITATNvidia unfolds powerful chip to retain edge in AI marketI-T - Additions framed u/s 68 were rightly quashed where the assessee has discharged onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction : ITATTrump’s lawyer says Trump has not means to raise bond in USD 464 mn fraud caseI-T- Addition cannot be framed on account of unexplained cash credit, where assessee has recorded the sales in its books and there is no adverse finding qua stock and purchases: ITATFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCX - Tax demands merits being quashed where based on oral statements but without permitting Assessee to cross examine the deponents & where also based on circumstantial statements: CESTATBJP decides to go with Chirag Paswan; trashes his uncle Pashupati Paras in BiharST - Being appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from Income Tax Department: CESTATDubai Financial Centre frames rules to regulate digital assetsCus - Clearance of domestic household goods without proper clearance, does not warrant disproportionate penalty of Rs 50000/-, as the same is not a case of regular import by an IEC holder: CESTATCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31stCX - In so far as security services for their factory and trading premises was concerned, said services was directly connected with their business and hence, appellant was entitled for credit of service tax paid: CESTAT
 
CX - CENVAT Credit is admissible on packing material cleared along with finished product without actually packing - Order of Tribunal denying credit is set aside: HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 03, 2016: THE appellant assessee is a manufacturer of moulded plastic furniture and material handling crates falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 9401.00/9403.00 and 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers of the department on a surprise visit found out that at request of the dealers, the packing materials namely HDPE Woven Sacks were sent along with finished products in loose condition to enable them to load more materials per truck thereby reducing the cost of freight per piece of the product. The appellant was however, issued a Show Cause Notice denying CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal also held that the assessee is not eligible for credit. The appellant is before the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal.

The High Court held:

+ The object of granting CENVAT credit is to ensure a single incidence of tax of the final product. The very purpose of the value added tax system is only to ensure this and to avoid incidence of tax more than once. The Tribunal has found that there is a mention about the packing material in fine print in the invoices. But, merely because it was found in a small print, the Tribunal interfered with a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Appeals.

+ There is no dispute about the fact that the final products were cleared along with the packing material in this case. The surprise inspection did not reveal that the packing materials were recalled and again made use of as sought to be contended by the Standing Counsel. An invention of this nature across the bar cannot improve the case of the Revenue.

+ The appeal is allowed and the order of Tribunal is set aside.

(See 2016-TIOL-861-HC-MAD-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS