Goods and Services Tax : Explains when recovery proceedings are triggered after a confirmed tax demand. Highlights that non-payment within the prescribed p...
Excise Duty : CESTAT remands Kohler India case, stating Supreme Court's Safari Retreats judgment under CGST cannot be mechanically applied to CE...
Goods and Services Tax : An overview of India's pre-GST excise duty and CENVAT credit system, explaining how taxes were levied, credits claimed, and the ra...
Excise Duty : The Supreme Court upholds CENVAT credit for telecom infrastructure, ruling in favor of telecom operators on towers and shelters....
Excise Duty : Explore the Madras High Courts decision in India Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, allowing Cenvat credit for electricity...
Excise Duty : Introduction of CENVAT credit rules across goods and services in the year 2004 was one of the major steps in indirect taxes reform...
Excise Duty : We observed instances of non-submission of various prescribed returns by the assessees. Non-submission of returns would hinder th...
Excise Duty : However, the said goods would be exempt from excise duty subject to non availment of Cenvat credit on input. [Notification No 30/2...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on F...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between...
Excise Duty : The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance li...
Service Tax : CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before i...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chennai ruled that the BOOT water transmission agreement was a single indivisible works contract and not a trading activity...
Service Tax : Is reversal under rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 additionally required for all the services specified in notification 2...
Goods and Services Tax : The CENVAT credit of service tax paid under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 was available as transitional credit under sectio...
Excise Duty : CENVAT credit. - (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the ...
Excise Duty : I am directed to invite your attention to the landmark judgement of the CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. V/s...
Excise Duty : It has been brought to the notice of the Board that some of the manufacturers of exempted goods are exporting such goods under bon...
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on FOR destination basis and the buyer’s premises is the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on earlier Larger Bench and Supreme Court-based principles for determining admissibility of credit.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before issuance of notice and remained unutilised due to sufficient credit balance.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that the BOOT water transmission agreement was a single indivisible works contract and not a trading activity. The Tribunal held that transfer of property in goods during execution did not convert the contract into sale of goods.
Tribunal held that capital goods do not lose eligibility for Cenvat credit after becoming part of an immovable plant fixed to earth. It ruled that admissibility depends on compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, not on immovability of final structure.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that statements relied upon against assessees cannot be used without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The matters were remanded after finding violation of principles of natural justice.
Tribunal held that job work activities resulting in intermediate products do not attract reversal under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules when the final dutiable products are cleared on payment of excise duty. The appeal against the service tax demand was accordingly allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that before the 2016 amendment, there was no prohibition under the Cenvat Credit Rules against using basic excise duty credit for payment of NCCD. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s demand for recovery of ₹4.53 crore.
The Tribunal held that credit depends on the nature of duty and not the rate at which it is paid. The key takeaway is that concessional CVD does not bar CENVAT credit.
