Bombay High Court has held that it was within the discretion of the assessee whether to utilize Cenvat credit at one of its unit or distribute it amongst other units providing output The High Court however dismissed appeal observing that the entire exercise was revenue neutral as distribution of Cenvat credit to various units would result in lesser service tax being paid by them.
Bombay High Court has held that time consumed by the concerned Ministry in granting certificates required for retrospective exemption and refund must be ignored.
Goods in question were never received by the assessee in its factory and therefore, the assessee’s claim of having consumed the same was not genuine.
It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant is reimbursing the freight amount to their consignees to the extent freight is paid by the consignee. Besides, it was also found that the appellant was also issuing credit notes for reimbursement of freight charges. Thus, the case of the Revenue is that the freight is ultimately paid by the appellant i.e. the consignor even in the cases where invoices show balance freight amount to be paid by the consignee-dealer.
Bombay High Court has held that rough and ready formula as formulated by CESTAT regarding availability of Cenvat credit on guest houses, that credit was available only on guest houses situated near the manufacturing unit, was not entirely satisfactorily.
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 15 September 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 2. The Revenue in […]
Jurisdiction to commence proceedings against the director of a delinquent company for recovery of tax dues of delinquent company would require the notice to director/former directors, itself indicating what steps had been taken to recover the dues from delinquent company and failure thereof.
State Bank Of India Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is submitted that in this case, the Assessing Officer while passing the regular assessment orders had overlooked and/or ignored this particular claim. It is submitted that it is not a case of change of opinion as neither the assessment order referred to allowing of this […]
Explore the Apar Industries vs UOI case on GST refund interest. Petition challenges non-payment of interest on granted refund. High Court directs adjudication. Key details here.
Delhi ITAT has allowed the proportionate allocation of deemed dividend on the basis of the shareholding of the borrowing company. We find this Judgment to be wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case as in the facts of this decision, both the shareholders were holding more than 10% in the lending company and more than 46% in borrowing company.
