Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
