CA Sansaar
- All Categories
- Income Tax (1614)
- Students (768)
- Service Tax (497)
- Corporate Law (462)
- Audit (393)
- Accounts (336)
- VAT (277)
- GST (136)
- Excise (106)
- Finance (105)
- Banking (46)
- FEMA (40)
- Custom (29)
- Shares & Stock (18)
- IFRS (17)
- Income Tax Software (4)
- Cost Inflation Index (1)
Recent
- What is Union Budget 2026-27?
- Test
- 26QB Challan
- Cash amount deposit in bank account as on dt:31-03-24
- branch statutory Audit
- Tax Liability on payment of Gratuity
- Using the work orders of another entity
- Capitalisation of Assets in case of housing society
- GSTR 9 ITC Reversal
- Reissue Refund of Closed Partnership Firm
- section 43B(h)
- TCS os sale of Fly Ash
- Limit of cash on hand sec 44ad person
- STATUTORY AUDIT
- Long term capital gain
- Un secured loans hug amount sec 68 provision applicable
- Resume Upload
- Cash balance increased options
- FOREX FFMC GSTR-1
- missing turnover show in next quater or drc-03 pay correct procedure
- Banking
- Gift transactions from relatives allowed different dates
- TALLY EXCEL IMPORT
- Income Tax
- Empanelment ewnewal fees
- Tax Audit in case of Pvt. Ltd. Company
- ITC from ISD wrongly reflecting in System generated annual GSTR 3B
- Pf and esi subscription amounts late payments claim eligible and provision compulsory
- GST Applicability
- Loans credit and debit adjustment entry allowed in it act
- Tax audit or itr-3 filed f.y.22-23
- Gst returns nil filed cash deposit in bank account
- Cash limit question
- TDS
- Income from AIF Mutual Fund-Under Section-115UA & 115UB.
- Income Tax
- Audit
- audit
- Income Tax
- TDS on provision of audit fees
Q. > Please Help: indirect tax
a case comes up in 2011 between USHA RECTIFIER CORPORATION V. CCE
in this case assesse imported various parts and components for testing equipments.the testing equipment was manufactured and capitivly used. assesse claimed goods are not taken out of premises.
but the decision is diffrnt according to them statemnt in balance sheet established that testing equipment was fabricated in the company and capitalized. this was also mentioned in board of director report. statement confirmed that equipment was marketable.. as per rule 9 goods are deemed to be have been removed.. hence excise duty is payble.
MY VIEW IS THA TESTING EQUIPMENT IS A CAPITAL GOOD AND IF A CAPITAL GOOD IS MANUFATURED AND CAPITIVELY USED IN THE PRIMISES IS EXEMPT FROM EXCISE DUTY...VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.67/1995~CE..... SO I DONT UNDERSTAND THE DICISION.....
Experts Panelist
Comments
Sanjeet
27-Apr-2013 , 02:30:42 pmDear Nitish, In my View notification 67/1995 is for intermediate goods, which was again used in final product and within the same factory. In this case that was capital goods as you stated not captive goods i.e. intermediate goods also not the part of final product. Also he also state he motive is to save import duty. I hope you well aware of that the import duty is levied for balancing the Indian duty burden. So indirectly trying to save excise duty. even duty is allowed to him as input. But first he have to pay the same.