<?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>Tribunal Affirms Pre-2012 Cenvat Credit Distribution by ISDs Without Proportionality, Dismisses Jurisdictional Challenges.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77190</link>
    <description>Input Service Distributor (ISD) - Entitlement to Cenvat credit on the entire credit distributed by their head office despite the fact that the appellant company having three units - Rule 7 before 2012 allowed the ISD discretion to distribute the credit among its units without a mandatory proportional distribution. This rule changed post-2012 to require proportional distribution based on turnover, which was not the case during the period in question. - The tribunal noted several precedents where similar distributions of Cenvat credit were upheld under the unamended rules. - The tribunal agreed with the appellant that the show cause notices on jurisdictional grounds were inappropriate and that claims regarding the extended period were time-barred due to the absence of any factual suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 07:28:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 07:28:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Affirms Pre-2012 Cenvat Credit Distribution by ISDs Without Proportionality, Dismisses Jurisdictional Challenges.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77190</link>
      <description>Input Service Distributor (ISD) - Entitlement to Cenvat credit on the entire credit distributed by their head office despite the fact that the appellant company having three units - Rule 7 before 2012 allowed the ISD discretion to distribute the credit among its units without a mandatory proportional distribution. This rule changed post-2012 to require proportional distribution based on turnover, which was not the case during the period in question. - The tribunal noted several precedents where similar distributions of Cenvat credit were upheld under the unamended rules. - The tribunal agreed with the appellant that the show cause notices on jurisdictional grounds were inappropriate and that claims regarding the extended period were time-barred due to the absence of any factual suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 07:28:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>