TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appeals, confirms Cenvat credit entitlement, upholds denial of service tax credit.</h1> <h3>NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LTD Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -INDORE</h3> NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LTD Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -INDORE - TMI Issues:1. Withdrawal of refund claims by the appellant2. Dispute regarding the availment of Cenvat credit3. Denial of credit for service tax paid by the head office under reverse charge basisIssue 1: Withdrawal of refund claims by the appellantThe appellant, an EOU engaged in manufacturing chemical products, availed Cenvat credit but could not utilize it, leading to the filing of refund claims totaling Rs. 4,08,15,675. The appellant later withdrew these refund claims and intimated the department to close the proceedings. The adjudicating authority held that the refund claims were withdrawn, but the recording of credit balance in the GST account was deemed illegal due to ongoing dispute over the availment of credit.Issue 2: Dispute regarding the availment of Cenvat creditThe appellant was aggrieved by the observations of the adjudicating authority regarding the availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant reinstated the credit subject to dispute settlement, citing a Tribunal decision in their favor. The Tribunal's final order dated 30.10.2018 confirmed the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit of duty paid by the manufacturer supplier, setting aside the demand and penalty.Issue 3: Denial of credit for service tax paid by the head office under reverse charge basisThe denial of credit for service tax paid by the appellant's head office under reverse charge basis was based on the argument that the tax was not paid routinely but disclosed under the VCES scheme, indicating suppression. The Tribunal held that the VCES scheme allows declaration of past tax liabilities, and since the head office's tax was not paid from 2009 to 2012, there was suppression, making the credit unavailable. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on circulars and precedent decisions, upholding the denial of credit for service tax paid by the head office.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting observations related to withdrawn refund claims and confirming the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit of duty paid by the manufacturer supplier while upholding the denial of credit for service tax paid by the head office under reverse charge basis.
TaxTMI 