TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit taken on the basis of advisory notes / transfer-for-debit notes was admissible; (ii) Whether cenvat credit on towers was admissible as capital goods.
Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit taken on the basis of advisory notes / transfer-for-debit notes was admissible.
Analysis: The credit dispute turned on the basis of availment of credit through documents issued by the headquarter / Central Telecom Store Depot. The matter had earlier been remanded in the appellant's own case for fresh decision, and the same course was considered appropriate for the present period as well.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.
Issue (ii): Whether cenvat credit on towers was admissible as capital goods.
Analysis: The appellant's case was that it was providing only landline services and therefore towers were not required, while the record did not clearly establish the factual basis on which the credit was denied. The matter therefore required reconsideration on facts and law at the original stage.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing and permitting fresh evidence in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual foundation for denial of cenvat credit is incomplete or the issue has already been remanded in an earlier round, the proper course is fresh adjudication after due hearing.
TaxTMI 
