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>Appellant entitled to 75% abatement from taxable value despite CENVAT Credit reversal.</h1> <h3>KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE - UDAIPUR</h3> KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE - UDAIPUR - TMI Issues Involved:The appeal challenges the order-in-appeal regarding denial of 75% abatement from taxable value due to availing Cenvat Credit and subsequent reversal, leading to a demand of Rs. 23,31,054/- of Service Tax along with interest and penalty.Issue 1 - Benefit of Abatement:The main issue is whether the appellant can be denied the benefit of 75% abatement from taxable value under Notification No. 01/2006-ST despite reversing the CENVAT Credit availed earlier.The Tribunal observed that the appellant had initially availed CENVAT credit but later reversed it in a revised return, meeting the condition of non-availment for the abatement. Various decisions, including the case of Punj Lloyd Limited vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & ST., Rohtak, supported the view that reversal of credit suffices for availing the benefit of the notification. The judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India also emphasized that reversal of credit amounts to non-taking of credit, entitling the assessee to the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal held that the denial of the benefit was not sustainable, setting aside the order under challenge and allowing the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the 75% abatement from taxable value under Notification No. 01/2006-ST despite initially availing and later reversing the CENVAT Credit. The decision was based on established legal principles and previous judgments supporting the allowance of the benefit in such cases.
TaxTMI 