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>Court affirms Cenvat Credit eligibility for service tax payment, dismissing appeal based on precedent.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate. Versus M/s. GTL Infrastructure Limited.</h3> The Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate. Versus M/s. GTL Infrastructure Limited. - 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 650 (Bom.) , [2020] 78 ... Issues:1. Eligibility of the assessee to utilize Cenvat Credit for service tax payment under section 66A of the Finance Act.2. Whether the CESTAT erred in relying on previous decisions regarding service tax liability.Issue 1:The main issue in this case is whether the respondent can discharge its service tax liability on a reverse charge basis under section 66A of the Finance Act by using Cenvat Credit available on duty paid for capital goods purchased. The Tribunal's order dismissed the Revenue Appeal by referring to Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows the utilization of Cenvat Credit for service tax payment. Additionally, various decisions, including those in the cases of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aquapharma Chemicals Private Limited, were relied upon to support this position.Issue 2:The appellant raised questions regarding the reliance placed by CESTAT on previous decisions related to service tax liability. The appellant argued that the decisions in cases such as HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aquapharma Chemicals Private Limited have already been accepted by the Revenue and not challenged in court. Furthermore, the appellant attempted to distinguish the present case from previous decisions based on the nature of the services involved, but the court held that this distinction was not substantial enough to warrant a different outcome. The court concluded that the issue had been settled by decisions of various High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Delhi High Court, and therefore, the questions raised did not give rise to any substantial question of law.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the precedent set by previous decisions and the acceptance of similar cases by the Revenue, thereby affirming the respondent's eligibility to utilize Cenvat Credit for service tax payment under section 66A of the Finance Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
