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...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that substantive benefit of the appellant cannot be taken away merely because the refund claim is filed under Ru...
Excise Duty : Explore the CESTAT Delhi ruling allowing cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in cement manufacturing. Full text and expert a...
Goods and Services Tax : When the return is filed in the Telangana Portal and credit got transferred on the same day to Maharashtra portal, the department ...
Service Tax : Petitioner states that mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 as amended by notification No.13/2013 provides for exemption in case...
Service Tax : Gujarat High Court directs refund with interest under section 11B in Pankaj Bagri case, ruling on repeated rejection of service ta...
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 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.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere manual segregation of plastic scrap from the rest of the scrap is neither manufacturing nor producing the plastic scrap and hence no central excise duty is chargeable on removal of the same.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is just a procedure and procedural lapse cannot be ground to deny the substantial benefit of Cenvat Credit.
