Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
The appellant wrongly availed Cenvat credit on input services for unsold flats after issuance of completion certificate, contravening Rules 6(3) and 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was invoked for extended period of limitation, interest, and penalty. The appellant admitted that after receiving the completion certificate, the building became immovable property, and booking receipts were for sale of property, not service. The appellant had the option to take proportionate credit for sold flats and reverse the balance for unsold flats. Cenvat credit eligibility has a direct nexus with tax payment liability. Since the appellant had no service tax liability for unsold flats, they were ineligible to retain the availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal affirmed the invocation of extended period, penalty, and interest, as the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade service tax liability. The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant wrongly availed Cenvat credit on input services for unsold flats after issuance of completion certificate, contravening Rules 6(3) and 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was invoked for extended period of limitation, interest, and penalty. The appellant admitted that after receiving the completion certificate, the building became immovable property, and booking receipts were for sale of property, not service. The appellant had the option to take proportionate credit for sold flats and reverse the balance for unsold flats. Cenvat credit eligibility has a direct nexus with tax payment liability. Since the appellant had no service tax liability for unsold flats, they were ineligible to retain the availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal affirmed the invocation of extended period, penalty, and interest, as the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade service tax liability. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
