Search Results for "input service credit"

153 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 153 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Blocking of Input Tax Credit Under Rule 86-A of CGST/MGST Rules for Violation of Natural Justice. Prior Hearing Mandated Before Blocking Credit Under Rule 86-A.

The petitioner, Ashapura Steel Metal, through its proprietor Velaram Viraji Choudhary, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Revenue Appeal in CENVAT Credit Case — Works Contract Service Classification Upheld. CENVAT Credit on Input Services for Works Contract Held Inadmissible Under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Allahabad dated 09.11.2017, which allo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Central Excise Case — Appellant Entitled to Cenvat Credit on Input Services. Definition of 'Input Service' Under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is Broad and Includes Services Having Nexus with Manufacturing Business.

The appellant, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts, registered under the Central Excise Act. It file...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee's Appeals on Cenvat Credit for Inputs Used in Exempted Goods, Partially Allows Revenue's Appeals on Education Cess. Tractors are exempted goods despite education cess, but separate accounts are required under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The judgment concerns multiple appeals filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Assessee) and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Revenue) against a co...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Case on CENVAT Credit Restriction for Inputs from 100% EOU. Rule 3(6)(a)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 restricts credit on inputs manufactured by a 100% EOU, and reversal under Rule 3(4) does not remove the restriction.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Allows Appeal in KVAT Penalty Case — Penalty Under Section 70(2)(a) Cannot Be Imposed Without Specific Finding of Mens Rea or Fraudulent Intent. Revisional Authority's Restoration of Penalty Set Aside as Assessee Had Disclosed Purchases in Returns and Paid Tax.

The case involves an appeal filed by M/s Bhavani Enterprises, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, against an order of t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Vodafone's Appeal on CENVAT Credit for Telecom Towers and Shelters. CENVAT Credit on Towers and Prefabricated Buildings Denied as They Are Immovable Property and Not Capital Goods Under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Appellant, Vodafone India Ltd., filed appeals under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, cha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows CENVAT Credit for Input Services Used for Storage Tanks Outside Factory in Central Excise Case — Services Used in Relation to Storage of Inputs Eligible for Credit Even if Received Outside Factory Premises.

The appellant, M/s. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., is a manufacturer of excisable goods under Chapters 28, 29, and 31 of the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...