<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Petitioner Denied ITC on Customs Duty; Credit Repayment Required, Penalty Overturned, Interest Demand Upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77071</link>
    <description>Levy of interest and penalty - transition of amount wrongly claimed as input tax credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The court confirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to the ITC on basic customs duty under the CENVAT Credit Rules and thus could not transition this credit under the CGST Act. This was deemed an error by the department, but the petitioner was still liable for the repayment of the credit received erroneously. - The court upheld the decision to set aside the penalty of Rs. 21,44,097 imposed on the petitioner, agreeing that the requirements for fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression were not met, hence the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act was incorrect. - The court maintained the demand for interest u.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 10:02:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 10:02:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petitioner Denied ITC on Customs Duty; Credit Repayment Required, Penalty Overturned, Interest Demand Upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77071</link>
      <description>Levy of interest and penalty - transition of amount wrongly claimed as input tax credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The court confirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to the ITC on basic customs duty under the CENVAT Credit Rules and thus could not transition this credit under the CGST Act. This was deemed an error by the department, but the petitioner was still liable for the repayment of the credit received erroneously. - The court upheld the decision to set aside the penalty of Rs. 21,44,097 imposed on the petitioner, agreeing that the requirements for fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression were not met, hence the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act was incorrect. - The court maintained the demand for interest u.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 10:02:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>