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...
The case addressed whether insurance services qualify as input services. The Tribunal held that insurance linked to business assets is eligible for Cenvat credit, emphasizing indirect nexus with manufacturing.
Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax and accordingly, set aside the entire demand as time barred.
The order highlights that both improper issuance of notices and incorrect application of law led to invalid recovery proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the demand and granted relief to the appellants.
Explains when recovery proceedings are triggered after a confirmed tax demand. Highlights that non-payment within the prescribed period allows authorities to initiate recovery actions.
The Tribunal held that denial of CENVAT credit on car parking and rent-a-cab services was unsustainable as the issue is settled in favour of taxpayers, leading to allowance of refund.
The issue was denial of credit due to post-amendment invoicing. The Tribunal held that credit is admissible since services were completed before the cut-off date.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely for non-submission of challans when supplier certification and evidence of tax payment exist. The ruling clarifies that substantive compliance prevails over procedural lapses.
The tribunal examined whether the quantity of misappropriated inputs could be revised in remand proceedings. It held that unchallenged earlier findings attain finality and cannot be altered. The key takeaway is that remand cannot reopen settled issues without appeal.
