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 : A vexed issue, being eligibility of CENVAT credit on Sales Commission Agent's Services, post the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat...
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...
Service Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) wher...
Service Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) where CESTAT rules on procedur...
Service Tax : CESTAT set aside demand of service tax on amounts received as booking cancellation charges, price difference & corporate discount,...
Excise Duty : Gauhati High Court rules no mandatory installation of capital goods in the year of procurement for Cenvat credit eligibility. Key ...
Excise Duty : In Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Bombay High Court mandates cash refund instead of CENVAT credit for excess ...
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 Delhi held that in case of amendment in Bill of Entry, period of limitation should be counted from the date of amendment and not from the date of assessment of Bill of Entry.
CESTAT Delhi held that exemption benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 not available as new conditions amended vide Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 not satisfied.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 not available to machine dipped match splints as power is used in the manufacture of match splints.
CESTAT Mumbai held that non-reflection of Cenvat Credit in ST-3 return cannot be ground to deny refund of unutilized cenvat credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that input service credit when distributed by the Input Services Distributor (ISD), cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR 2004.
The issue to be decided is whether the rejection of the request to transfer the cenvat credit balance to the lessee unit is legal and proper.
Concerned authorities have justified issuance of Show Cause Notice by invoking extended period of limitation, but for a mere allegation that there was suppression. It is very much settled position of law that allegations, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof.
Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue.
During investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. After considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to allege that the appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
