Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
