Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appellant was denied CENVAT credit on the allegation that the sender units inflated the value of Soap Noodles stock transferred to the appellant, leading to excess credit being taken. The key issues were whether the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs u/r 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the consequent recovery of credit along with interest and penalty. It was held that since the appellant paid duty on the invoices issued by the sender units at 115%/110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in VG. STEEL INDUSTRY VERSUS CCE case observed that even if duty is paid in excess of the finally payable amount, unless the excess is refunded, the assessee can claim CENVAT credit as the department cannot get the duty twice. Since the higher duty paid by the supplier was not challenged by the Revenue and not refunded, the appellant correctly took the CENVAT credit. The CENVAT credit of duty paid on procurement of inputs is admissible and cannot be asked to be reversed. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant was denied CENVAT credit on the allegation that the sender units inflated the value of Soap Noodles stock transferred to the appellant, leading to excess credit being taken. The key issues were whether the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs u/r 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the consequent recovery of credit along with interest and penalty. It was held that since the appellant paid duty on the invoices issued by the sender units at 115%/110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in VG. STEEL INDUSTRY VERSUS CCE case observed that even if duty is paid in excess of the finally payable amount, unless the excess is refunded, the assessee can claim CENVAT credit as the department cannot get the duty twice. Since the higher duty paid by the supplier was not challenged by the Revenue and not refunded, the appellant correctly took the CENVAT credit. The CENVAT credit of duty paid on procurement of inputs is admissible and cannot be asked to be reversed. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
