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>Conflicting rulings on Cenvat credit for steel in Advertising Services remanded for reassessment.</h1> <h3>Chitra Publicity Company Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad</h3> Chitra Publicity Company Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:Entitlement of Cenvat credit on steel items, Admissibility of Cenvat credit, Contrary judgments on Cenvat credit, Setting aside the dropping of demand on the ground of time-barred.Entitlement of Cenvat credit on steel items:The case involved the appellant engaged in providing taxable Advertising Services using fabricated hoarding boards. The appellant claimed Cenvat credit for steel items used in fabrication, but the department denied the credit citing rules and circulars. The Adjudicating Authority relied on precedents and confirmed a demand for Cenvat credit. The appellant argued citing various judgments that supported the admissibility of the credit. The Tribunal noted conflicting judgments post the adjudication order and concluded that the issue required reconsideration based on evolving legal interpretations and facts specific to the case.Admissibility of Cenvat credit:The Tribunal observed that the issue of Cenvat credit admissibility for steel items was complex, involving mixed questions of law and facts. They highlighted contradictory judgments, including decisions from the Gujarat High Court and the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough review by the Adjudicating Authority in light of subsequent legal developments and varied High Court decisions.Contrary judgments on Cenvat credit:The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting judgments post the initial adjudication order. They referenced decisions from the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which presented differing views on the admissibility of Cenvat credit for similar cases. Due to these contradictory legal interpretations, the Tribunal recommended a reassessment by the Adjudicating Authority considering the evolving legal landscape.Setting aside the dropping of demand on the ground of time-barred:Regarding the Revenue's appeal to set aside the dropping of a demand due to being time-barred, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision. They noted that no suppression of facts was found during the CERA audit, leading to the dismissal of the demand. The Tribunal concurred with the findings that there was no basis for alleging suppression of facts until March 2007, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the remand of the assessee's appeal to the Adjudicating Authority for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
