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 Tribunal held that total business turnover, including non-taxable income, must be considered for exemption eligibility. Since the threshold was exceeded, refund was rightly rejected.
CESTAT held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It set aside entire tax demand due to lack of intent to evade.
The case examined whether goods were actually supplied against invoices. The Tribunal ruled that lack of infrastructure and transport evidence indicated non-genuine transactions, justifying penalty.
The Tribunal held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It ruled that absence of fraud or suppression renders such demand time-barred.
The Tribunal held that expansion of an existing manufacturing unit cannot be treated as setting up a new factory. Credit was allowed as the services were directly linked to manufacturing and not covered under exclusion clauses.
The Tribunal examined whether credit can be denied due to non-existent supplier addresses. It held that absence of evidence proving non-receipt of services invalidates such denial. The ruling confirms that valid invoices and payment proof are sufficient to sustain credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
The tribunal held that proportionate reversal of credit for trading is sufficient compliance. It ruled that full reversal under Rule 6(3A) is not mandatory.
The case examined denial of credit on GTA services for outward transportation. The Tribunal held that FOR delivery terms made the buyer’s premises the place of removal, allowing credit.
The Tribunal held that cryogenic storage tanks qualify as capital goods when used for providing taxable services. It rejected the restriction that such goods must be used within the factory. The ruling confirms eligibility of credit based on functional use.
