Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the impugned order disallowing CENVAT credit taken on input services used in BTS (Base Transceiver Station) Towers/Shelters. The Larger Bench observed that the decision in Bharti Airtel case was limited to 'input' as a source of credit and is not relevant for the dispute over entitlement of 'input service' as credit. There is no break in the CENVAT credit chain insofar as 'input service' is concerned. The Larger Bench held that various Benches of the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit on input services used for commissioning and erection of telecom towers without examining the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Bharti Airtel decision. The Larger Bench clarified that the Bharti Airtel decision did not make any distinction between inputs and input services.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the impugned order disallowing CENVAT credit taken on input services used in BTS (Base Transceiver Station) Towers/Shelters. The Larger Bench observed that the decision in Bharti Airtel case was limited to 'input' as a source of credit and is not relevant for the dispute over entitlement of 'input service' as credit. There is no break in the CENVAT credit chain insofar as 'input service' is concerned. The Larger Bench held that various Benches of the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit on input services used for commissioning and erection of telecom towers without examining the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Bharti Airtel decision. The Larger Bench clarified that the Bharti Airtel decision did not make any distinction between inputs and input services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
