CA Saurabh Chokhra's Posts - Page 10

Extended limitation period on issues interpreted differently by different courts

M/s. Aarti Industries Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Mumbai)

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....

Read More

Utilisation of Accumulated Cenvat credit as on 10.09.2004

Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Mumbai)

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 Cen...

Read More

Services having indirect nexus with business are Input services

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Appeals (CESTAT Mumbai)

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....

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied unless evasion of duty alleged in SCN

Precision Metals Vs CCEx, Raigad (CESTAT Mumbai)

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....

Read More

Cenvat Reversal by Job worker availing N/No. 214/86 exemption

Precision Metals Vs CCEx (CESTAT Mumbai)

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 princ...

Read More

Proceedings under rule declared unconstitutional by HC in invalid

Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. Vs CCEx, Pune I (CESTAT Mumbai)

The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise held that when the rule under which duty is sought to be demanded itself has been struck down as unconstitutional by various High Courts, the show-cause notice which are based upon rule 8(3A) cannot survive and are liable to be set aside....

Read More

Supply of goods to Indian Navy not must to claim excise exemption

CCEx Vs M/s Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai)

The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCEx vs. M/s Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd. held that exemption under notification no. 25/2002-CE is available the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and in respect of such goods a certificate is produced from Indian Navy....

Read More

Revised return with same info is furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT Vs M/s. Rattha Citadines (ITAT Chennai)

The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income...

Read More

Assessment completed by AO relying on estimations cannot be remanded back by CIT to reverify some aspects of estimation relied on

Sri Surakshitha Homes Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO held that where the AO has assessed income on estimation basis then CIT cannot order to revise the assessment by picking and choosing some aspects of estimation to be re-verified....

Read More

Unilateral claim based on internally generated documents without any independent evidence cannot be allowed as business expenditure

DCIT Vs M/s Leroy Somer& Controls(India) P.Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

The ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Leroy Somer & Controls held that the internally generated documents by company without confirmation of the same by the other party are not sufficient to make a claim of discount....

Read More

Search Posts by Date

October 2020