Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The appellant imported parts on which Special Additional Duty (SAD) was paid, but these parts were not sold as such. Instead, they were used for installation of an irrigation system and sale of goods. The appellant claimed a refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which was rejected by the revenue authorities on two grounds: (1) the parts were not sold as imported, and (2) the appellant did not pay Value Added Tax (VAT) as the goods attracted a nil rate of VAT. The Tribunal held that although the appellant gave a different nomenclature while reselling the goods, no further process was carried out, and the parts were sold individually. The contract had separate portions for sale of goods and installation of the irrigation system. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on the first ground was incorrect and illegal. Regarding the second ground, it is settled law that even if the goods attract a nil rate of VAT, it is treated as VAT being paid appropriately. Hence, the refund cannot be rejected on this ground either. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in similar cases, holding that the refund is admissible under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus even if the goods attract a nil rate of VAT.
The appellant imported parts on which Special Additional Duty (SAD) was paid, but these parts were not sold as such. Instead, they were used for installation of an irrigation system and sale of goods. The appellant claimed a refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which was rejected by the revenue authorities on two grounds: (1) the parts were not sold as imported, and (2) the appellant did not pay Value Added Tax (VAT) as the goods attracted a nil rate of VAT. The Tribunal held that although the appellant gave a different nomenclature while reselling the goods, no further process was carried out, and the parts were sold individually. The contract had separate portions for sale of goods and installation of the irrigation system. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on the first ground was incorrect and illegal. Regarding the second ground, it is settled law that even if the goods attract a nil rate of VAT, it is treated as VAT being paid appropriately. Hence, the refund cannot be rejected on this ground either. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in similar cases, holding that the refund is admissible under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus even if the goods attract a nil rate of VAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
