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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Disallowance of CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant on various inputs and input services. The key points are: The credit was denied as the inputs and services did not qualify u/rs 2(k) and 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to the exclusion clauses. The decisions cited by the appellant were not relevant. The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court affirmed that goods/services excluded under the definition cannot be covered by referring to the main clause. Regarding construction materials, they fall under the exclusion clause for goods used for building construction. The appellant failed to prove the activities were for renovation/repair of an existing factory, as required for the inclusion clause. The credit on security and manpower services after production commenced was allowed, as it could not be attributed to factory setup. The demand needs re-determination, and the penalty u/r 15(1) was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed.
Disallowance of CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant on various inputs and input services. The key points are: The credit was denied as the inputs and services did not qualify u/rs 2(k) and 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to the exclusion clauses. The decisions cited by the appellant were not relevant. The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court affirmed that goods/services excluded under the definition cannot be covered by referring to the main clause. Regarding construction materials, they fall under the exclusion clause for goods used for building construction. The appellant failed to prove the activities were for renovation/repair of an existing factory, as required for the inclusion clause. The credit on security and manpower services after production commenced was allowed, as it could not be attributed to factory setup. The demand needs re-determination, and the penalty u/r 15(1) was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
