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 Chennai held that credits relating to renovation, sales promotion, testing services, vehicle-related expenses, and similar services could not be denied when they had a real nexus with taxable output services. The ruling clarifies that functional connection with business activities remains relevant even after amendments to the definition of input services.
CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
CESTAT Chennai held that exports made under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the DEPB scheme cannot be included in exempted turnover for Rule 6(3A) credit reversal. The Tribunal consequently set aside the demand for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the assessee establishes a real and sufficient nexus between the disputed input services and its output services. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove otherwise and set aside the credit denial.
CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it again would amount to impermissible double counting.
CESTAT Chennai found that the Department’s case was based on an allegation that manpower services were used exclusively for insurance and mutual fund activities. The Tribunal held that the services were actually used across multiple business verticals, making the denial of CENVAT credit unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that housekeeping services used for maintaining telecom equipment and business premises qualify as input services. Credit was allowed as the services were directly connected with the provision of telecommunication output services.
CESTAT Delhi held that proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used for generating exempted electricity is sufficient compliance with Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand and penalty.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on items such as MS Angles, Beams, Channels, and Plates is admissible where they are essential for manufacturing final products. The denial order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again when the service provider has already collected and deposited the tax. The balance sponsorship service tax demand was therefore quashed.
