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

        Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in CENVAT Credit case, penalties deemed unsustainable. Procedural corrections, revenue-neutral outcome.

        M/s. Pricol Ltd. (Plant I), M/s. Pricol Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate

        M/s. Pricol Ltd. (Plant I), M/s. Pricol Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate - 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 215 ... Issues Involved:
        1. Unauthorized transfer of CENVAT Credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I.
        2. Wrongful availment and distribution of CENVAT Credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD.
        3. Imposition of penalties on M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I and M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD.
        4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period of limitation.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Unauthorized Transfer of CENVAT Credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I:
        The case revolves around M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I transferring CENVAT Credit of Rs. 3,32,14,672/- to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD, which was alleged to be unauthorized under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The department viewed this transfer as improper since M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I, being a manufacturer, was not authorized to distribute credit, a role designated to the Input Service Distributor (ISD). The tribunal found that M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I had reversed the credit initially transferred to them by the ISD, thereby restoring the status quo. This reversal was considered as non-availment of credit, based on precedents like Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and others.

        2. Wrongful Availment and Distribution of CENVAT Credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD:
        M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD availed credit based on an invoice from M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I and distributed it to various units. The department alleged that this was done on improper documents. However, the tribunal noted that during the relevant period, there were no restrictions on the quantum of credit that could be distributed by an ISD. The tribunal emphasized that the reversal of credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I and subsequent re-credit by the ISD was a procedural act to correct an inadvertent transfer, which did not violate any substantial legal provisions.

        3. Imposition of Penalties on M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I and M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD:
        The Original Authority had imposed penalties on both entities for the alleged wrongful actions. The tribunal, however, found that the entire exercise was revenue-neutral, with no financial injury caused to the exchequer. The reversal and re-credit of the CENVAT Credit were seen as procedural corrections rather than substantive violations, and thus, the penalties were deemed unsustainable.

        4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Invoking the Extended Period of Limitation:
        The department issued a Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging suppression of facts. The tribunal found that all transactions were recorded in the appellants' accounts and returns, negating any basis for suppression. The reliance on the decision in Doshion Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad, upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, supported the tribunal's view that the extended period was not justifiable.

        Conclusion:
        The tribunal concluded that the demand and penalties imposed by the Original Authority could not be sustained. The reversal of credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I and the re-credit by M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD were procedural actions to correct an inadvertent transfer, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs as per law.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found