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...
The Tribunal held that Cenvat credit is available only in relation to taxable services and not for trading activities. The case was remanded for recalculation of admissible reversal for the normal period.
The Tribunal held that services of commission agents fall within the scope of “sales promotion” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. As a result, the demand denying Cenvat credit on sales commission services was set aside.
The dispute concerned Rule 6 demands on electricity transferred outside the manufacturing unit. CESTAT held that proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit amounts to non-availment of credit, making the demand unsustainable. The appeals were allowed and the demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that shortages of raw materials and finished goods cannot be established through mere eye estimation. The Tribunal consequently quashed excise demands, interest, and penalties based on alleged stock shortages.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that various disputed services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal ruled that services having a direct or indirect connection with manufacturing were eligible for Cenvat credit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid for outward freight and insurance was admissible where goods were delivered at the buyer’s premises and ownership passed there. The demand was set aside on merits and limitation.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenue appeals challenging banks’ eligibility for CENVAT credit on service tax paid for deposit insurance premium. The Court held that the issue already stood concluded by earlier Kerala and Bombay High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the five-year limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, which was absent in the case.
CESTAT Kolkata held that granules cleared to job workers for conversion into PPCP containers could not be treated as traded goods. The Tribunal ruled that reversal of credit under Rule 3(5) had been properly carried out.
Tribunal observed that where goods are sold on FOR destination basis, the buyer’s premises may constitute the place of removal. If established on facts, CENVAT credit on outward transportation services would be admissible.
