CENVAT Credit Rules | Only Common Input Service To Be Considered For Calculating Credit For Reversal Under Rule 6(3A): CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered. Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, provides the specific procedure and formula for determining the amount of CENVAT credit that must be reversed when a manufacturer or service provider uses common...

Excise | Captive Exemption Cannot Be Denied When Final Products Are Partly Cleared On Duty Payment & Partly Under Exemption: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption. Central Excise Notification No. 67/95-CE provides an exemption from excise duty for specified inputs and capital goods that are manufactured and captively consumed within the same factory for the production of final, dutiable products. P....

Non-Compete Fee Can Be Deducted As Revenue Expenditure Under Section 37(1) Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor...

Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer

The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to...

Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in the absence of any service rendered by the assessee. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao...

Multiple-Noticee GST Cases Must Be Adjudicated By Single Commissionerate Based On Highest Demand: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the...

GST Not Leviable On Interest/Penalty Charged By Chit Fund Companies For Delayed Payment Of Monthly Subscriptions: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that interest and penalty collected by chit fund companies from defaulting subscribers for delayed payment of instalments are not taxable under GST. Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether the interest/penalty collected for the delay in payment of the monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST. In the case at hand, the petitioner was a chit fund company engaged in the business of running chit schemes. The...

ITC Cannot Be Denied To Purchasing Dealer Solely Due To Retrospective Cancellation Of Supplier's GST Registration: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit. In this case,...

Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the six-year block period under Section 153C must be computed from the date when seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer...

Can GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To Examine

The Delhi High Court will examine whether GST can be demanded on medicines and consumables supplied to patients as part of inpatient treatment.The court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare, challenging a GST demand of Rs 6.66 crore, along with interest and penalty. A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain clarified that adjudication proceedings arising from the...

Fraudulent CENVAT Credit Allegations Involving Complex Facts Not Fit For Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed,“This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction…In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden...

Customs | Attending Weddings Can't Justify Indian Origin Foreigner Bringing Half Kilogram Gold Jewellery: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar further added that there was no explanation for the Petitioner, a US citizen, to bring 17 high value mobile phones (iPhones) to India and walk through the green channel.“A total of 17 mobile phones were brought by...