Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appellant paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT credit involved in such removal. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if an assessee collects an amount in the name of excise duty and retains it, the same must be credited to the Central Government. In this case, although the appellant charged excise duty over and above the CENVAT credit involved, the total amount collected from the customer was paid by debiting the CENVAT account. According to the CESTAT judgment in Shivam Metals, if the amount collected in the name of excise duty is paid to the government, the demand for such amount cannot be raised invoking Section 11D. Therefore, the demand u/s 11D in the present case is not sustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside, allowing the appeals.
The appellant paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT credit involved in such removal. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if an assessee collects an amount in the name of excise duty and retains it, the same must be credited to the Central Government. In this case, although the appellant charged excise duty over and above the CENVAT credit involved, the total amount collected from the customer was paid by debiting the CENVAT account. According to the CESTAT judgment in Shivam Metals, if the amount collected in the name of excise duty is paid to the government, the demand for such amount cannot be raised invoking Section 11D. Therefore, the demand u/s 11D in the present case is not sustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside, allowing the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
