Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Keltron IT Business Group Versus Union of India Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax

2015 (4) TMI 969 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Availment of wrongful CENVAT Credit - After being informed assessee reversed the credit - Non maintenance of separate books of accounts - whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal - Held that:- petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2013, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal against Ext.P6 order. It is made clear that the appeal to be filed by the petitioner would be governed by the statutory provisions, as they stood prior to the amendment introduced with effect from 16.08.2014. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP(C). No. 8883 of 2015 (I) - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J For the Petitioner : Sri Joseph Kodianthara, Sr Adv, Sri V Abraham Markos, Adv, Sri Binu Mathew, Sri Tom Thomas, Sri Abraham Jose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the petitioner had mistakenly availed ineligible credit on input services amounting to ₹ 2.8 lakhs. On being informed that the petitioner was not eligible to the said credit, the petitioner immediately reversed the said credit. However, after reversing the same, on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained separate books of accounts for the credit availed, the 2nd respondent has demanded ₹ 14 crores along with equal penalty by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is impugned in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce Act, 1994, with effect from 16.08.2014, the petitioner is required to deposit only 7.5% of the tax amount confirmed against it, as a condition for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions of counsel on either side. I find that Ext.P6 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent, against which the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended to prefer an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with effect from August 2014, the petitioner's right of appeal as per the erstwhile provisions of law would not be affected by the provisions introduced by the amendment of 2014. Although not expressly referred to in the interim order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.3393/2015, the view seems to be consistent with the settled law that the institution of a suit carries with it an implication that all rights of appeal then in force are prese .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version