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...
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 : 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 rules against Leel Electricals Ltd., denying CENVAT Credit on ineligible invoices. The tribunal upholds tax demand an...
Excise Duty : The appellant herein has merely utilized the credit and, to the extent that rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has not been sh...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi overturns ₹10 lakh penalty under Rule 26(1), citing the absence of confiscation, a key requirement for imposing pen...
Excise Duty : Once a demand has been raised for any issue by invoking extended period of limitation, then another demand cannot be raised again ...
Service Tax : The Respondent was engaged in the business of fabrication and fixing of aluminium utensils. Respondent had availed CENVAT credit o...
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...
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.
CESTAT Delhi held that towers, shelter and parts thereof are ‘capital goods’ accordingly entitled to avail Cenvat Credit under Capital Goods.
CESTAT held that even though setting up of a new factory, construction of building of service provider is not excluded from the definition of Input service. In this case the construction of Jetty is clearly in the nature of expansion of existing Jetty therefore, credit is clearly admissible.
CESTAT Chennai held that an assessee cannot avail of the options under Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 simultaneously. Once the option is availed, other option cannot be chosen simultaneously.
