The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Aarti Industries Ltd. vs. CCEx, Thane held that wrong availment of Cenvat credit cannot be said to a willful attempt of suppression with the intent to evade the payment of duty when the matter has been interpreted in different manner by different tribunals and courts.
The ITAT bench of Pune in the case of M/s Thermotech Engineering held that where the assessee has earned exempt income and incurred expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa vs. ITO held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning its basis i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars or both would make the proceedings illegal because AO’s satisfaction of the existence
Input services not only cover services of falling in the substantial part of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but also cover services which are covered under the inclusive part as the same having some sort of nexus with the business activity of the assesses.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Precision Metals vs. CCEx held that as per the special procedure prescribed in Notification no. 214/86 job worker can get duty exemption in respect of job worked goods cleared to principal manufacturer but this exemption donot make the goods as exempt from duty because ultimately duty got paid at the principal manufacturer send
The CESTAT Mumbai held that when there is no allegation regarding fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act , then imposition of penalty by the department is wrong and illegal.
The Hon’ble MP High court in the above stated case placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCExheld that as per Rule 11(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 23/2004-CE, the amount of credit earned by the manufacturer under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which existed prior to 10.9.2004, can be utilized by them as per transitional rule 11 of the new Cenvat credit rules,2004.
Delhi HC in the case of WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. held that in the absence of ‘mutual agreement’ or ‘arrangement’ or ‘action in concert’ for the allocation or apportionment of or contribution to the cost or expenses incurred by the Assessee in connection with benefit, service or facility provided to the AE , there cannot be an international transaction.
When the admissibility of Cenvat credit is not disputed on legal grounds viz eligibility and duty payment document, then credit cannot be denied merely on technical lapses.
