Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The appellant manufactured and sold Draw Texturizing Machines, which were cleared in parts as it was not feasible to transport the entire machine in one truck. The appellant followed the prescribed procedure under Trade Notice No.MP/29/83 and intimated the jurisdictional Central Excise department. As the machinery could not be cleared assembled, the appellant was obligated to assemble and install the machine at the buyer's premises. The contract was undisputedly for the sale of the machine, and no separate service was involved. The appellant was registered with the Central Excise department, discharging excise duty and filing periodic returns. The appellant did not charge any amount towards service, and the total value, including erection charges, was billed for the manufacture and sale of the machine. The appellant intimated the department about the piecemeal supply as per the Trade Notice and disclosed that the machines would be assembled and erected at the customer's site. Therefore, there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. Consequently, the extended period for demand was wrongly invoked, rendering the demand time-barred. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant manufactured and sold Draw Texturizing Machines, which were cleared in parts as it was not feasible to transport the entire machine in one truck. The appellant followed the prescribed procedure under Trade Notice No.MP/29/83 and intimated the jurisdictional Central Excise department. As the machinery could not be cleared assembled, the appellant was obligated to assemble and install the machine at the buyer's premises. The contract was undisputedly for the sale of the machine, and no separate service was involved. The appellant was registered with the Central Excise department, discharging excise duty and filing periodic returns. The appellant did not charge any amount towards service, and the total value, including erection charges, was billed for the manufacture and sale of the machine. The appellant intimated the department about the piecemeal supply as per the Trade Notice and disclosed that the machines would be assembled and erected at the customer's site. Therefore, there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. Consequently, the extended period for demand was wrongly invoked, rendering the demand time-barred. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
