Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Appellants engaged in manufacturing dutiable goods and providing exempted trading services failed to maintain separate accounts for input services utilized in both activities as mandated u/r 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). They paid service tax on royalty charges to overseas principals for both domestically manufactured and imported bottle closures. Department interpreted royalty as common input service requiring separate accounting and payment u/r 6(3) for exempted trading activity. Appellants discharged amount u/r 6(3) with interest and penalty before show cause notice (SCN). Original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) orders lacked examination of facts and appellants' compliance. Tribunal relied on BHEL-GE case, holding since appellants paid CENVAT credit for trading, it's construed as no credit taken, dropping demand. Commissioner (Appeals) directed redetermination of actual CENVAT payable u/r 6(3) after considering appellants' option u/r 6(3AA), without imposing penalty. Appeal partly allowed, setting aside penalty imposition.
Appellants engaged in manufacturing dutiable goods and providing exempted trading services failed to maintain separate accounts for input services utilized in both activities as mandated u/r 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). They paid service tax on royalty charges to overseas principals for both domestically manufactured and imported bottle closures. Department interpreted royalty as common input service requiring separate accounting and payment u/r 6(3) for exempted trading activity. Appellants discharged amount u/r 6(3) with interest and penalty before show cause notice (SCN). Original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) orders lacked examination of facts and appellants' compliance. Tribunal relied on BHEL-GE case, holding since appellants paid CENVAT credit for trading, it's construed as no credit taken, dropping demand. Commissioner (Appeals) directed redetermination of actual CENVAT payable u/r 6(3) after considering appellants' option u/r 6(3AA), without imposing penalty. Appeal partly allowed, setting aside penalty imposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
