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

2016 (2) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (2) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 423 (Del.) - Cenvat Credit - the Commissioner (Appeals) held since the Appellants were maintaining separate accounts "they should not have utilized the CENVAT Credit on those inputs services which were used for providing non-taxable output services." Further there was a condition of restricting the CENVAT credit to 20% as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Held that:- no substantial question of law arises 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

Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. Jitin Singhal and Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Advs For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Agrim Bhasin, Adv ORDER CM No. 4749/2016 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is disposed of. CEAC 3/2016 & CM No. 4678/2016 (for stay) 3. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant Assessee on 7th April 2006 asking him .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rvice tax of ₹ 63,202. 4. In the order dated 31st August 2010, the Assistant Commissioner noted that in terms of the Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 the Assessee had an option to maintain separate accounts for the taxable and non-taxable services and demonstrate that the CENVAT credit was being claimed only in respect of input services which were intended for use in providing output services on which service tax is payable. The second condition was that the credit would be availed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2012 dismissed it on the ground of failure by the Appellant to seek waiver of pre-deposit and also not deposit the disputed amount of service tax and penalty. When the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a second round of adjudication, an order dated 21st June 2013 was passed once again dismissing the appeal, this time on merits. In short, the Commissioner (Appeals) held since the Appellants were maintaining separate accounts "they should not have utilized the CENVAT Credi .....

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