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 Piramal Healthcare Limited Versus CCE, Indore

2016 (9) TMI 182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cenvat credit - service tax paid on input services of technology development received - project didn't yield any result - service provider has returned back the same money as unsecured loan - mention of third party MERCK in the agreement made between the appellant and the service provider - Held that:- considering the facts of repayment by the service provider of service charges of ₹ 6,61,80,000/- as unsecured loan to the appellant; mention of a third party namely MERCK in the agreement; a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

during March, 2010 - it is found that there has been wilful mis-statement and suppression on the part of the appellant with intention to wrongly claim the ineligible credit and Revenue could notice this fact only through their audit. Therefore, the Revenue has rightly confirmed the demand and imposed equivalent penalty on the appellant. - Decided against the appellant - Excise Appeal No. 52392 of 2014 - Final Order No. 53087 / 2016 - Dated:- 19-8-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ash .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

input service to the tune of ₹ 61,80,000/- alongwith interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on the appellant namely M/s Piramal Healthcare Limited, Pithampur, M. P. 2. The appellant is represented by ld. C.A., Sh. S.S. Gupta, who has inter alia submitted as follows: (i) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of P.P. Medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They had the project for manufacture of hard gelatine capsule by filli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ealthcare Ltd. -2010 (17) STR 134 (Tri. Ahmd.) * Indswift Laboratories Ltd. -2015-TIOL-372-CESTAT-DEL * Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. -2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom) 3. The Revenue has been represented by ld. DR, Shri Yogesh Agarwal, who has reiterated the findings given by Commissioner, Indore in his impugned order. 4. The facts of the case and submission of both the sides alongwith case laws cited have been carefully considered. 5. The appellant claims that they have utilised technology development servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n record that the said amount of ₹ 6,61,80,000/- was returned back by the service provider to the appellant as unsecured loan. The Revenue has submitted that neither the subject input services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product as the project didn t yield any result and secondly, the service provider has returned back the same money as unsecured loan; consequently, the provisions of Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 have not been fulfilled. 5.1 Further, du .....

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