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...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Madras High Court ruling in Eicher Motor Ltd. v. Superintendent GST, stating no interest on GST if deposited on time, ...
Service Tax : CESTAT Mumbai, in Tata AIG case, rules credit can't be denied for incorrect service description on invoices when correct service t...
Excise Duty : CESTAT, Kolkata made a significant ruling regarding the amendment in Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Previous version of the...
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 Delhi rules against Leel Electricals Ltd., denying CENVAT Credit on ineligible invoices. The tribunal upholds tax demand an...
Excise Duty : The appellant herein has merely utilized the credit and, to the extent that rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has not been sh...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi overturns ₹10 lakh penalty under Rule 26(1), citing the absence of confiscation, a key requirement for imposing pen...
Excise Duty : Once a demand has been raised for any issue by invoking extended period of limitation, then another demand cannot be raised again ...
Service Tax : The Respondent was engaged in the business of fabrication and fixing of aluminium utensils. Respondent had availed CENVAT credit o...
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 Mumbai held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture.
In Panihati Rubber Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case, appellant self-reversed CENVAT credit during an audit, avoiding need for an SCN.
CESTAT Delhi held that when the demand of duty has been settled under SVLDR Scheme, the imposition of penalty would fail on simple ground that if the appellants had applied under the said scheme, they would have paid ‘nil’ duty.
CESTAT Chandigarh quashes denial of Cenvat Credit on input, input services, capital goods for Tower Vision India Pvt Ltd. Analysis of the ruling.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Cenvat credit can be availed for clearance of dyed yarn, if the duty is paid at the doubling stage.
Explore CESTAT Chandigarh order allowing Cenvat Credit for Sari Guard and Mirror Assembly in case of Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
Analysis of CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling on eligibility to use Cenvat credit for service tax payment when engaged in both manufacturing and services. Case details and conclusion.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for availment of cenvat credit and thereof consequently the refund.
In a recent CESTAT Mumbai order, the eligibility of cenvat credit for bus transportation charges is discussed. Learn the key details and implications here.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand under Clause (i) of Rule 6(3) i.e. payment of 5%/10% of the value of exempted goods unjustified as appellant rightly availed the option of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 i.e. reversal of proportionate cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods.
