New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (2) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 632 (Guj.) - Extended period of limitation and, penalty imposed on the assessee - Held that:- Extended period cannot be invoked and demand has to be restricted to the period within one year from the date of show cause notice. The amount involved within the period of one year should be worked out by the adjudicating authority and communicated to the appellant. The same should be paid by the appellant alongwith interest. - So far as impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AX APPEAL NO. 52 of 2016 - Dated:- 28-1-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. MOHINDER PAL, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue has filed the appeal against the judgement of the CESTAT dated 10.06.2015 raising following questions for our consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that extended period cannot be invoked and demand has to be restricted to the period within one year from the date of show cause notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect in holding that intention to evade duty cannot be attributed when the issue of admissibility of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on Guest House & Colony maintenance was disputed so as to impose penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of CEA,1944 when Rule 9(6) of CCR, 2004 cast burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit? 2. From the materials on record, it emerges that, the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty. In this context, the Tribunal held and observed as under: 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Appellant is not contesting the issue on merits but has contested the issue on time bar. It is the case of the appellant that the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit on the services availed on the Guest House and Colony maintenance services was only decided by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CCE & Cus. Vs GHCL (supra) when the earlier decision passed by CESTA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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