Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant (a 100% EOU) unlawfully availed CENVAT credit on exempted services and failed to reverse the full ineligible credit by the prescribed date under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal affirmed that where common credit is used, reversal of the portion attributable to exempted services was required on or before 30 June of the relevant year, and delay attracts interest under Rule 6(3A). The appellant's partial reversal on 2 June 2009 and belated balance reversal on 30 September 2009 gave rise to interest liability from the stipulated date until actual reversal; the impugned order was accordingly upheld.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant (a 100% EOU) unlawfully availed CENVAT credit on exempted services and failed to reverse the full ineligible credit by the prescribed date under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal affirmed that where common credit is used, reversal of the portion attributable to exempted services was required on or before 30 June of the relevant year, and delay attracts interest under Rule 6(3A). The appellant's partial reversal on 2 June 2009 and belated balance reversal on 30 September 2009 gave rise to interest liability from the stipulated date until actual reversal; the impugned order was accordingly upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
