<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1129 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760530</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax and Cenvat Credit issues. The tribunal held appellant not liable for service tax on water supply from Government of Odisha, following precedent that such arrangements constitute supply of water rather than assignment of natural resource rights. Regarding Cenvat Credit re-availment after changing options under Rule 6(3), the tribunal found no suppression as appellant had informed the department through letters. Credit taken on invoices after one year was also permitted since it was disclosed in ER-1 returns filed within department&#039;s knowledge. Consequently, demand of Rs. 183,09,57,095 was set aside along with interest and penalties. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:31:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1129 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760530</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax and Cenvat Credit issues. The tribunal held appellant not liable for service tax on water supply from Government of Odisha, following precedent that such arrangements constitute supply of water rather than assignment of natural resource rights. Regarding Cenvat Credit re-availment after changing options under Rule 6(3), the tribunal found no suppression as appellant had informed the department through letters. Credit taken on invoices after one year was also permitted since it was disclosed in ER-1 returns filed within department&#039;s knowledge. Consequently, demand of Rs. 183,09,57,095 was set aside along with interest and penalties. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>