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 case examined conflicting allegations of non-movement and diversion of goods. The Tribunal held that such inconsistency, along with prior duty payment, made the demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The issue involved excess credit utilisation beyond the 20% cap in certain months. The Tribunal held that the rule does not mandate monthly computation and must be assessed annually. The key takeaway is that compliance with overall yearly limits is sufficient under Rule 6.
The issue involved denial of credit due to absence of ISD registration. The Tribunal held that this was a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of substantive credit.
The issue concerned denial of CENVAT credit on services used across multiple units under centralized registration. The Tribunal held that Rule 7 permits distribution of credit subject only to limited conditions and does not restrict usage across units.
The Tribunal held that failure to intimate the Superintendent under Rule 6(3A) does not invalidate proportionate credit reversal. It clarified that such intimation is procedural and not a substantive condition.
The tribunal ruled that the six-month limit introduced in 2014 cannot be applied to invoices issued before the amendment, as it would retrospectively restrict an accrued credit entitlement.
