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 ruled that wrongly availed CENVAT credit could not discharge June 2017 excise liability and sustained duty recovery with in...
Service Tax : CESTAT Remands CENVAT Credit Dispute Because Rule 6 Reversal Was Not Properly Examined...
Service Tax : CESTAT Delhi held that tax authorities cannot compel an assessee to adopt a particular compliance option under Rule 6 of the CENVA...
Service Tax : CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding n...
Service Tax : CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on tippers could not be denied merely because they were received before their inclusion as ...
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 ruled that wrongly availed CENVAT credit could not discharge June 2017 excise liability and sustained duty recovery with interest.
CESTAT Remands CENVAT Credit Dispute Because Rule 6 Reversal Was Not Properly Examined
CESTAT Delhi held that tax authorities cannot compel an assessee to adopt a particular compliance option under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Since the appellant had availed only proportionate eligible credit, the demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding no error in the adjudicating authority’s order, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on tippers could not be denied merely because they were received before their inclusion as capital goods. Since the vehicles were registered and put to use after 22.06.2010, the credit was held admissible.
The High Court ruled that the relevant date for filing refund claims is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange under the substituted notification. The refund claims were held to be beyond the limitation period.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be retained when based on invoices issued by fake or non-existent suppliers. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to verify supplier identity as required under Rule 7(2).
The Tribunal held that Rule 11(3) does not apply where common inputs are used for both exempted and dutiable products. Credit balances could continue to be utilised for payment of duty on dutiable goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that SAD refund cannot be denied when original files were misplaced by the department and substantive conditions stood satisfied. Procedural defects in reconstructed invoices were held insufficient to defeat refund entitlement.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the original customer. The Tribunal allowed the credit and ordered refund of the demand.
