Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.02 seconds)Cce Ahamadabad vs M/S Cadila Healthcare Ltd. on 20 January, 2014
14. I also see force in the Appellant's arguments that the Show Cause
Notice issued on 11/11/2016 is time barred. The Appellant has been taking
the Cenvat Credit and were reflecting the same in their Monthly Returns.
These Returns were audited by CERA in April 2014 and objection was raised
on this specific count. Immediately, in the Month of May, 2014, the
Appellants have made their stand clear. Therefore, the Department was in
full knowledge of the transactions made by the Appellant by May 2014 itself.
Therefore, the Department had no reason to delay the issue of Show Cause
Notice by another two and half year. The Department has not made out any
case of suppression on the part of the Appellant except for relying on the
Cadila Case law relied by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore, I hold
that the confirmed demand is not sustainable even on account of limitation.
Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-Ii on 1 September, 2014
Similar view has also been taken in the case of Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II
2018 (363) ELT 1172 (Tri-All) wherein it has been held that -
Commnr. Of Central Excise Ahmadabad-Ii vs M/S. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. on 19 August, 2014
"2. Cenvat credit has sought to be denied to the appellant relying on the
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported in 2013
(30) S.T.R. 3 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that such commission
agents are not engaged in the activity of sales promotion.
Maheswari Solvent Extraction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 4 October, 2010
Therefore, as there are contrary judgments, in that circumstance without
relying on either of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Courts, we decide the
issue independently in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case
of Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Nagpur reported in 2014 (299) E.L.T. 116 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it has been
held that if there are contrary view of the Apex Court, in that circumstance
the Adjudicating Authority is independent to take any view on merits of the
case. Therefore, we are taking independent view and hold that appellants
are entitled to avail Cenvat credit on commission paid to the selling agent
for selling the goods in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd vs Cce, Lucknow on 26 September, 2013
Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE Lucknow 2014 (35) STR 977 (TriDel)
CCE Alwar vs. Orient Refractories Ltd (CESTAT Delhi Final Order no
50494/2019
In view of the above discussions, we agree with the submissions made by the Ld. CA
that the appellant is legally eligible for credit. Further, in so far as limitation is concerned,
it is not in dispute that the availment of credit was duly disclosed in ER-1 returns. The
observations made by the Ld. Commissioner that the nature of credit availed was not
disclosed by appellant in the return is not correct for the reason that in the absence of
any column in the return requiring the assessee to disclose the nature of input service,
the same cannot be construed to mean that there is a malafide intention on the part of
the appellant. [Emphasis supplied]
Commr.Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
11. As could be seen from the above clarification, the decision in Cadila Health Care
was also taken note of by the department and the position stood clarified that sales
promotion would include services by way of sale of goods on commission basis. As
pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika
Township Private Limited [(2015) 1 SCC 1] that if a legislation confers the benefit on
some persons but without inflicting the corresponding detriment on some other person or
on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the
object of the legislature, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a
purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Kolkata Xii vs M/S Calcutta Export Company on 24 April, 2018
In
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Archean Granite Private Limited [(2020) 117
taxmann.com 977 (Madras)] amendment made to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Finance Act,
2010 inserting proviso therein was held to be retrospective with effect from the
assessment year 2005-06 and the Court followed the decision in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Export Company [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 51].
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Archean Granites Private Ltd on 13 July, 2020
In
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Archean Granite Private Limited [(2020) 117
taxmann.com 977 (Madras)] amendment made to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Finance Act,
2010 inserting proviso therein was held to be retrospective with effect from the
assessment year 2005-06 and the Court followed the decision in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Export Company [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 51].
M/S. Essilor Manufacturing India Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 February, 2017
While examining the
definition of Business Auxiliary Service, where the agent is engaged in
either promotion or marketing or where sale of goods produced or
provided by or belonging to the appellant, the Hon'ble High Court has
considered the issue of sales promotion and has not considered the issue
of marketing or sale of goods and this Tribunal has examined that issue in
the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the
assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit for commission paid to the
commission agent who effected the sale of goods manufactured by the
appellant.