Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.80 seconds)
L And T Sargent And Lundy Limited vs Vadodara-I on 22 November, 2024 cites

Jayam & Co. vs Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2016

followed the dictum of the Supreme Court in Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner (supra) and reiterated that the input tax credit could not be denied on the basis of an amendment, which is prospective. The question dealt with by the High Court was whether Section 140A(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, which declined the Cenvat credit in relation to goods purchased prior to one year from the appointed date, could be given retrospective effect. In answering the question in the negative, the Gujarat High Court held as under :
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 31 - Cited by 144 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. ... vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax, ... on 22 March, 2011

"9. Regarding denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were addressed to unregistered premises of the appellant, we note that there is no dispute regarding eligibility of input service for availability of credit to the appellant. The denial of credit is only with reference to address in the document. We find in various decisions, this Tribunal held that the credit cannot be denied on this reason. Reference can be made to the decision in Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We also note that in the appellant's own case on the same issue, the Original Authority for the later period held that denial of credit cannot be justified on this ground, vide order dated 21-7-2016."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next