Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
