Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellants denied Cenvat credit for construction materials by Tribunal. Compliance required for partial pre-deposits.

        M/s Entertainment World Developers (P) Ltd., M/s Naman Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Nanded Treasure Bazar Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Indore

        M/s Entertainment World Developers (P) Ltd., M/s Naman Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Nanded Treasure Bazar Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Indore - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Eligibility for Cenvat credit of central excise duty on various inputs and capital goods.
        2. Eligibility for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on various input services.
        3. Dispute regarding Cenvat credit of Rs. 54,53,290/- due to unavailability of original invoices (specific to EWDPL).
        4. Liability to pay service tax of Rs. 54,545/- on reverse charge basis for GTA services received (specific to NMCPL).
        5. Limitation period for Cenvat credit demand.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit of Central Excise Duty on Various Inputs and Capital Goods:
        The appellants, who are in the business of setting up and managing shopping centers, had their malls constructed through contractors. The primary issue was whether the appellants were eligible for Cenvat credit on central excise duty paid on inputs like steel, cement, glass, and capital goods like lifts used in the construction of the malls. The Tribunal held that the appellants were not eligible for Cenvat credit on these inputs and capital goods because these were used by the contractors for providing the construction service, not by the appellants directly for their output services. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the precedent set by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam - II vs. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd., where the storage warehouses were constructed by the assessee themselves.

        2. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit of Service Tax Paid on Various Input Services:
        The appellants argued that since they paid service tax on the rent received from leasing mall space and on the maintenance and management charges, they should be eligible for Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on input services used in the construction of the malls. However, the Tribunal held that the appellants would not be eligible for Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on input services used by the contractors in the construction of the malls. The Tribunal noted that the contractors, not the appellants, were the ones who used these input services.

        3. Dispute Regarding Cenvat Credit of Rs. 54,53,290/- Due to Unavailability of Original Invoices (Specific to EWDPL):
        In the case of EWDPL, there was a specific issue regarding the Cenvat credit of Rs. 54,53,290/- due to the unavailability of original invoices. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue in the order but implied that such matters require thorough examination during the final hearing.

        4. Liability to Pay Service Tax of Rs. 54,545/- on Reverse Charge Basis for GTA Services Received (Specific to NMCPL):
        For NMCPL, there was a specific dispute regarding the liability to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 54,545/- on reverse charge basis for GTA services received. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue in the order but implied that such matters require thorough examination during the final hearing.

        5. Limitation Period for Cenvat Credit Demand:
        The appellants contended that the bulk of the Cenvat credit demand was time-barred, arguing that they had disclosed relevant facts in their ST-3 returns. The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law that requires detailed examination during the final hearing. Therefore, no final view on the plea of time bar was expressed at this stage.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal directed the appellants to make partial pre-deposits to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. Specifically, the amounts to be deposited were Rs. 3 crores by EWDPL, Rs. 4 crores by NMCPL, and Rs. 2.25 crores by NTPBL. Upon compliance, the requirement for pre-deposit of the remaining amounts of Cenvat credit demands, interest, and penalties would be waived, and recovery stayed until the disposal of the appeals. Compliance was to be reported on 08/07/2014.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found