Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Dominant issue: whether CENVAT credit was fraudulently availed. The Tribunal found invoice comparison errors by the lower authority but confirmed that input and output invoices related to different months and that the respondent produced only invoices without proof of payment or service tax remittance; under Rule 4(7) Cenvat Credit Rules, credit required proof of payment and tax liability. Fictitious suppliers and proxy personnel established fraudulent issuance of invoices and thus nullified the credit (fraud vitiates). Consequence: demand of Rs. 20,07,497 reinstated, impugned order set aside and appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Dominant issue: whether CENVAT credit was fraudulently availed. The Tribunal found invoice comparison errors by the lower authority but confirmed that input and output invoices related to different months and that the respondent produced only invoices without proof of payment or service tax remittance; under Rule 4(7) Cenvat Credit Rules, credit required proof of payment and tax liability. Fictitious suppliers and proxy personnel established fraudulent issuance of invoices and thus nullified the credit (fraud vitiates). Consequence: demand of Rs. 20,07,497 reinstated, impugned order set aside and appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
