Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
This case pertains to the utilization of ineligible CENVAT credit by a company. The key points are: The company availed ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,30,84,835/- which was not permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax must be issued within 18 months, extendable to 5 years in case of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts. The company had disclosed all relevant information regarding CENVAT credit availed in its ST-3 returns. The Commissioner alleged misstatement and contravention with intent to evade tax, which the High Court found perverse as the show-cause notice did not mention willful misstatement or suppression. The Supreme Court has held that for invoking extended limitation, the show-cause notice must specifically mention willful misstatement or suppression. As the company disclosed facts and there was no allegation of willful suppression, the CESTAT order was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
This case pertains to the utilization of ineligible CENVAT credit by a company. The key points are: The company availed ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,30,84,835/- which was not permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax must be issued within 18 months, extendable to 5 years in case of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts. The company had disclosed all relevant information regarding CENVAT credit availed in its ST-3 returns. The Commissioner alleged misstatement and contravention with intent to evade tax, which the High Court found perverse as the show-cause notice did not mention willful misstatement or suppression. The Supreme Court has held that for invoking extended limitation, the show-cause notice must specifically mention willful misstatement or suppression. As the company disclosed facts and there was no allegation of willful suppression, the CESTAT order was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
