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>Tribunal allows appeal in part, denies Cenvat Credit on vessel services. Penalty overturned. Nexus with goods emphasized.</h1> <h3>VIKRAM ISPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD</h3> VIKRAM ISPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 52 (Tri. - Mumbai), 2012 (277) E.L.T. 197 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on various services related to vessels.2. Applicability of precedents from higher courts and tribunals.3. Nexus between services availed and the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods.4. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.5. Imposition of penalty and interest.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on various services related to vessels:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing hot briquetted iron and sponge iron, used iron ore pallets and lumps as raw materials. They availed services such as repair and maintenance, insurance, surveys, technical inspection and certification, and manpower recruitment for their tugs and barges. These vessels were used to transport raw materials from ships anchored at sea to the jetty and sometimes to carry the final product back to the ships. The appellant utilized the service tax paid on these services for payment of duty on their final products. The department contested this, issuing show-cause notices and proposing to recover the credit taken, along with imposing penalties and interest.2. Applicability of precedents from higher courts and tribunals:The appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in Manikgarh Cement Work's case, arguing they satisfied the test set out therein. They also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, claiming the latter was more applicable. The Tribunal considered these precedents, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki Ltd.'s case was binding and should be followed.3. Nexus between services availed and the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods:The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish a nexus between the services in question and the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods to claim Cenvat Credit. The lower authorities found that the barges and tugs were used beyond the jetty in the sea and channel. The appellant's claims of using these vessels for transporting goods to their factory lacked evidence. The Tribunal reiterated that services must be used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or their clearance to qualify as 'input services.'4. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Maruti Suzuki Ltd.'s case, which required that any service listed in the inclusive part of the definition must also satisfy the main part's requirements. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the definition of 'input service' should be construed liberally, as per the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries' case. Instead, it followed the Supreme Court's strict construction approach.5. Imposition of penalty and interest:The Tribunal acknowledged the interpretative nature of the case and decided to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. It noted that penalties are often waived in cases involving rival interpretations of legal provisions. However, the substantive issue of denying Cenvat Credit on the services in question was upheld.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal denied the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on the services related to their vessels, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki Ltd.'s case. However, the penalty imposed was set aside, recognizing the interpretative nature of the legal issue. The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a clear nexus between availed services and the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods to qualify for Cenvat Credit.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found