Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Recovery of CENVAT Credit - The finding/the reason quoted is apparently wrong as appellant has been an importer and not the manufacturer. Question of any amount of excise duty does not at all arise to ever be the liability of the appellant. Further the silence of any reference to the availment of credit in Section 28B of Customs Act or Section 11D of Central Excise Act is also observed to be an erroneous finding for the reason that irrespective both the sections are silent about the availment of credit but the simultaneous provisions in Rule 3 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules entitle the appellant to avail the said credit. Admittedly the same has not been availed. Hence, the collection of amount of said duty from the customers was justified. - AT
Recovery of CENVAT Credit - The finding/the reason quoted is apparently wrong as appellant has been an importer and not the manufacturer. Question of any amount of excise duty does not at all arise to ever be the liability of the appellant. Further the silence of any reference to the availment of credit in Section 28B of Customs Act or Section 11D of Central Excise Act is also observed to be an erroneous finding for the reason that irrespective both the sections are silent about the availment of credit but the simultaneous provisions in Rule 3 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules entitle the appellant to avail the said credit. Admittedly the same has not been availed. Hence, the collection of amount of said duty from the customers was justified. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
