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

        <h1>Court affirms Tribunal decision on tax liability, holds amendment prospective, not retrospective.</h1> <h3>Cipla Limited, Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa,</h3> Cipla Limited, Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, - 2019 (28) G. S. T. L. 427 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Demand of interest on incorrectly taken but not utilized Cenvat credit.2. Demand of interest on inadmissible Cenvat credit reversed without utilization.3. Prospective or retrospective application of the amendment to Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.4. Application of the Apex Court's decision in Ind-Swift Laboratories to the present facts.5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Demand of interest on incorrectly taken but not utilized Cenvat creditThe court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the demand of interest on Cenvat credit that was incorrectly taken but not utilized. The court referred to Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which states that interest is recoverable when Cenvat credit is 'taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded.' The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., which held that interest is payable if Cenvat credit is taken wrongly, regardless of its utilization. The court concluded that the Appellant was liable to pay interest even if the credit was not utilized.Issue 2: Demand of interest on inadmissible Cenvat credit reversed without utilizationThe court considered whether the Appellant was liable to pay interest on inadmissible Cenvat credit that was reversed without utilization. The court noted that the Appellant had taken credit on common inputs used for both excisable and non-excisable goods but did not reverse the credit for non-excisable goods until prompted by an audit. The court held that the Appellant's failure to reverse the credit initially constituted a contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, making them liable for interest under Rule 14.Issue 3: Prospective or retrospective application of the amendment to Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The court addressed whether the amendment to Rule 14 by Notification dated 17 March 2012, which changed 'taken or utilized wrongly' to 'taken and utilized wrongly,' applied retrospectively. The court held that the amendment was prospective and did not apply to the assessment years in question. The court emphasized that the demand notice was issued before the amendment, and thus, the Appellant could not benefit from the amended rule.Issue 4: Application of the Apex Court's decision in Ind-Swift Laboratories to the present factsThe court evaluated whether the decision in Ind-Swift Laboratories was applicable to the present case. The court found that the principles laid down in Ind-Swift Laboratories, which interpreted Rule 14 to impose interest on wrongly taken Cenvat credit regardless of utilization, were directly applicable. The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the facts of Ind-Swift Laboratories were different, affirming that the decision was relevant and binding.Issue 5: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The court examined the justification for imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The court noted that the Appellant had knowingly availed of Cenvat credit for inputs used in non-excisable goods and only reversed the credit after an audit. The court upheld the penalty, finding no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise and the CESTAT.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on all substantial questions of law. The Appellant was held liable for interest and penalty as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court concluded that the amendment to Rule 14 was prospective and did not apply to the case, and the principles from Ind-Swift Laboratories were correctly applied.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found