CA Sansaar
- All Categories
- Income Tax (1634)
- Students (770)
- Service Tax (497)
- Corporate Law (465)
- Audit (399)
- Accounts (341)
- VAT (277)
- GST (145)
- Excise (106)
- Finance (105)
- Banking (46)
- FEMA (40)
- Custom (29)
- Shares & Stock (18)
- IFRS (18)
- Income Tax Software (5)
- Cost Inflation Index (1)
Recent
- Income Tax Notice Received: What Should a Taxpayer Do?
- IN A GOVT OWENED PSU, MAKE PROVISION IN ACCOUNTS FOR ITEM HAVING CONTIGENCY IN NATURE
- GST Notice Received: How Should a Taxpayer Respond?
- CA vs CMA: Which is better?
- Can a Chartered Accountant Sign Estimated Financial Statements?
- Want to assist in Forensic Audit
- Revising 3CA 3CD to 3CB 3CD
- LFAR in Bank Branch Audit - Clause-by-Clause Discussion by CA Vivek Khurana Notes required
- Bank Branch Audit
- Got high refund
- Form 67
- GSTR9
- Partner of CA firm required
- RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION
- financial statements
- income Tax
- ITR Filing
- Property Attachement
- Liability of Independent and Non-executive director
- financial statements
- stock statement procedure for bank od loan
- ITR FILING OF ARMY UNIT
- signing of Project report
- NON CORPORATE BALANCE SHEET FORMAT
- CA FINAL
- Accounting Treatment of Mutual Fund under IndAS
- ITC Availed & Utilized on Supply from Non-Existent Firms
- GST Liability of Award received by a Company
- Reund of TDS Excess Deposited
- Income Tax TDS
- gst
- Reconstitution of partnership firm in case of death of partner and introduction of new partner
- Consolidattion of financial statemement
- PAYMENT TO OPEN AI AND ENVATO ELEMENT
- NR GST NUMBER
- Presumptive Income
- tax audit late filing penality provision applicable f.y.23-24
- Interest in outstanding demand
- sale turnover declared as per books or AIS show in itr f.y.23-24
- GST
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.