Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing soda ash, availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 46,27,417/- for the period 03.12.2005 to 31.03.2012 on input services utilized at salt pans for procuring salt, a raw material for soda ash production. The department rejected the credit on the grounds that it was availed beyond one year from the date of invoice, relying on Sections 11A and 11B of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, these sections do not prescribe any time limit for availing credit. The amendment introducing the one-year time limit was made on 11.07.2014, after the relevant period. Relying on the Roquette Riddhi Siddhi case, the Tribunal held that credit can be availed even after one year for invoices issued before 01.09.2014. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal, relying on precedents like Parry Engineering, held that credit cannot be denied merely because the input service was utilized outside the factory premises, as long as it has a nexus with manufacturing activity. Since salt procurement from salt pans is directly related to soda ash manufacturing, the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on such input services.
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing soda ash, availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 46,27,417/- for the period 03.12.2005 to 31.03.2012 on input services utilized at salt pans for procuring salt, a raw material for soda ash production. The department rejected the credit on the grounds that it was availed beyond one year from the date of invoice, relying on Sections 11A and 11B of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, these sections do not prescribe any time limit for availing credit. The amendment introducing the one-year time limit was made on 11.07.2014, after the relevant period. Relying on the Roquette Riddhi Siddhi case, the Tribunal held that credit can be availed even after one year for invoices issued before 01.09.2014. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal, relying on precedents like Parry Engineering, held that credit cannot be denied merely because the input service was utilized outside the factory premises, as long as it has a nexus with manufacturing activity. Since salt procurement from salt pans is directly related to soda ash manufacturing, the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on such input services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
