|
Indirect Taxes |
|
|
Central Excise & Customs |
|
Capital goods were received prior to 1.4.2000 but installed thereafter. 50% of cenvat availed thereof in the year 2000-01 & remaining in the year 2001-02. The department contented that only 50% of the credit was admissible in view of language of Rule 57AC(2)(a), which read as under. "CENVAT may also be taken in respect of such capital goods as have been received in the factory, but have not been installed, before the 1st day of April, 2000 subject to condition that during the financial year 2000-2001, the credit shall be taken for an amount not exceeding fifty percent of the duty paid on such capital goods." Decision Supreme Court held that only first 50% credit was admissible as the rule uses the expression " subject to" which is limited to an amount not exceeding 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods. It was however held that though a beneficial statute should be considered liberally, however where a statute does not admit of more than one interpretation, literal interpretation must be resorted to. CCE vs. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd 2007 (145) ECR 12 -SC
L & T undertook a contract for construction of bridges for Konkan Railways. A notice dated 1.5.96 was issued seeking to demand duty for the period March 1993 to December 1994. The extended period of limitation was invoked by alleging suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Decision Supreme Court held that for invoking the larger period, act of fraud & suppression must be specifically spelt out in the notice. Allegation regarding suppression must be clear and explicit so as to enable a noticee to reply to the same. Since the allegation of suppression was vague, demand was held to be barred by limitation. Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. CCE 2007 (211) ELT 513 (SC)
Toyota Kirloskar entered into an agreement with its majority shareholder, M/s Toyota Motor Corpn, Japan for establishing an automobile manufacturing plant in India. Toyota also imported some capital goods & parts from Toyota, Japan. The dispute herein relates to valuation of these capital goods and parts thereof, the department sought to include certain amounts paid towards royalty & know how regarding the manufacturing process for which a separate agreement between the two parties had been entered into. Decision Supreme Court held that the said amount were not includible as the same was not a condition of import. It was held that a distinction, clearly exists between an amount payable as a condition of import and an amount payable in respect of the matters governing the manufacturing activities, which may not have anything to do with the import of the capital goods. Commissioner of Customs vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. 2007(213) ELT 4 (SC).
Coca-cola supplied certain non-alcoholic beverage bases/concentrates to its bottler for making beverages and aerated waters. There was a dispute regarding classification of these non-alcoholic bases/concentrates. Coca-cola in their counter affidavit before the Supreme Court, contended as under: "The present appeal has no Revenue implication. The dispute relates to classification of beverage bases/concentrates manufactured by the respondent, which are supplied to bottlers, who in turn use the same as raw material in the manufacture of beverages. The duty payable in respect of beverage basis/concentrates is modvatable. Since the duty payable by the Respondent is modvatable, there is no revenue implication. The issue of classification is therefore academic. No purpose would be served by entertaining the present appeal". Decision Supreme Court held that since excise duty payable and the modvat credit available were identical, payment of excise duty after availing modvat credit was revenue neutral. In view of the stand taken by the assessee in the counter affidavit, the appeals were allowed leaving the question of law open. CCE vs. Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd 2007 (213) ELT 490(SC)
Gujarat Ambuja claimed input service credit in respect of service tax paid on the freight incurred on the transportation of cement sold by it. Revenue disallowed the same on the ground that service tax credit was available only in respect of inward/outward transportation of final products upto the place of removal and that since the goods were removed for sale from the factory service tax paid on the transportation cost from the factory to the buyers premises would not be available as credit. Decision Tribunal held that such credit is not admissible as the said service has been rendered beyond the place of removal. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. CCE 2007 (80) RLT 8 |