Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
Self-assessed import entries remain appealable, while bona fide classification disputes without misdeclaration cannot justify confiscation or penaltie...
Actual-user customs exemption conditions permit turnkey project transfers when imported windmill components are exclusively used for installation and ...
Customs offence disqualification excludes civil contraventions, preventing refusal of a private bonded warehouse licence based solely on monetary pena...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
