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.
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.
It is held that merely because assessee has not reverse credit attributable to provision of exempted services would not disentitle it to claim credit which is otherwise available in respect of input services used in provision of taxable services.
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.
It was held that CENVAT credit of inputs and input services used for production of electricity captively consumed is allowed. Further no reversal of CENVAT credit is required under Rule 6 of CENVAT credit rules,2004.
It was held that the supplies to SEZ should be treated as exports and no reversal of CENVAT is required to be done under Rule 6 as amended with effect from 10.09.2004.
In the case of J.P. Morgan Services India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise(Service Tax), Mumbai, it was held that the benefit of export rebate cannot be denied even if the services are exported prior to the date when Export of Service Rules, 2005 are brought into the statute.
Services of commission agent abroad is input services as the commission agent procured the orders for the appellant and thereafter the appellant manufactured the goods. Therefore, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on such services is available.
it was held that creation of cenvat documents and debiting duty without physical movement of goods and in turn took back the credit without receipt of any goods, is a clear violation of Central Excise Act and Rules and is liable to penalty.
It was held that the rate of duty applicable on the differential assessable value recovered at the depot premises attributable to the products manufactured would be the rate applicable to the said goods when they were cleared from the factory premises.
