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...
The appellant is not liable to pay service tax on supply of water by the Government of Odisha, as the issue has been settled by the Tribunal's decision in a previous case. The agreement between the appellant and the government is for supply of water, for which charges are paid based on volume drawn, and it is not a case of assignment of right to use natural resources. Regarding re-availment of Cenvat credit subsequent to change of option u/r 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had intimated the department, and no suppression can be alleged. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 183,09,57,095/- is set aside. Concerning Cenvat credit availed on invoices after one year of issuance, the appellant had shown it in the ER-1 return, and no suppression of facts can be alleged. Consequently, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. As no demand is sustainable, no interest is payable, and no penalty is imposable. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The appellant is not liable to pay service tax on supply of water by the Government of Odisha, as the issue has been settled by the Tribunal's decision in a previous case. The agreement between the appellant and the government is for supply of water, for which charges are paid based on volume drawn, and it is not a case of assignment of right to use natural resources. Regarding re-availment of Cenvat credit subsequent to change of option u/r 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had intimated the department, and no suppression can be alleged. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 183,09,57,095/- is set aside. Concerning Cenvat credit availed on invoices after one year of issuance, the appellant had shown it in the ER-1 return, and no suppression of facts can be alleged. Consequently, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. As no demand is sustainable, no interest is payable, and no penalty is imposable. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
