The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Whirlpool Of India Ltd. (HC-Delhi)(22 Dec, 2015)

Held: The Revenue has been unable to demonstrate by some tangible material that there is an international transaction involving AMP expenses between WOIL and Whirlpool USA. In the absence of that first step, the question of determining the ALP of such a transaction does not arise. In any event, in the absence of a machinery provision it would be hazardous for any TPO to proceed to determine the ALP of such a transaction since BLT has been negative by Court as a valid method of determining the existence of an international transaction and thereafter its ALP. Assessee’s Appeal allowed.

raised by the Revenue in the appeals are of academic importance and hence deserve to be rejected. Appeals dismissed

Judgements/Tribunals

Content right to :eJurix

The Principal Commissioner Vs M/S. Essar Oil Limited(HC-Guj)(9 Dec, 2015)

Held: From the record it does emerge that there was no dispute even by the Department on the issue that the assessee had consumed for itself various services at various stages in their manufacturing and business activities. Cost was born by the assessee which also formed a part of the value of the goods manufactured. Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines “input service”. This definition is couched in means and includes the expression. The definition 'input service' would mean, any service used by the provider of output service, or used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal, and would include various services specified in the said definition. In view of such broad definition, three authorities below concurrently, and in courts opinion correctly, found that the service in question was 'input service' and the service tax paid thereon would be available to the assessee by way of Cenvat Credit. No question of law, therefore, arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed

Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. M/S Nestle India Limited (SC)(24 Nov, 2015)

Held: The manner of valuation of goods would not be relevant for the simple reason that what has to be determined in the facts of the present case is the valuation of the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act on like goods produced or manufactured in India by undertakings other than 100% EOUs. Court was afraid this approach flies in the face of the language of the notification dated 1.3.1997. The aforesaid expression is obviously different from the expression "sold" and does not require any actual sale for the notification to be attracted. In fact revenue's case is also that even though the said notification is attracted, yet because there is no sale somehow the FOB export price of like goods alone is to be looked at. If this were to be so, not only would the object of the notification not be sub-served but even its plain language would be violated if the revenue were right, logically they ought to have contended that the notification does not apply, in which event the test laid down under Section 3(1) proviso (ii) would then apply. Appeal dismissed.