TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether credit was admissible on structural steel and cement used for construction of foundation and supporting structure; (ii) whether the penalties imposed were liable to be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether credit was admissible on structural steel and cement used for construction of foundation and supporting structure.
Analysis: The claim to credit on the impugned goods was treated as settled by the Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. and the Supreme Court decision in Saraswati Sugar Mills, both of which had already considered the admissibility of credit on such goods used in construction-related applications.
Conclusion: Credit was held inadmissible, and the confirmation of duty and interest was upheld against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed were liable to be sustained.
Analysis: The penalty issue was viewed in the light of the existence of conflicting decisions at the material time, and the later settlement of the controversy by the Larger Bench. On that footing, penalty relief was considered appropriate.
Conclusion: The penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The duty and interest demand was sustained, but the penalties were deleted, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Credit on structural steel and cement used in construction of foundation and supporting structure is not admissible once the issue stands settled by binding precedent, while penalties may be waived where the controversy remained unsettled at the relevant time due to conflicting orders.
TaxTMI 
