Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.20 seconds)
Good Year India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & ... on 4 October, 2024 cites

Ness Digital Engineering (India) ... vs The Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst.Comm. Of Income ... on 23 February, 2023

4 E/417-418/2012 4.2 She further submits that the entire issue involved in the present case has been settled in appellant's own case for the subsequent periods in favour of the appellant basis the same audit objections raised by the department. She further submits that for the subsequent periods, proceedings were initiated vide show cause notice dated 07.05.2015 for the period 2014-15 and show cause notice dated 08.06.2016 for the period 2015-16 on the same issue basis the same audit objections, but the proceedings were dropped by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2016 and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant for the subsequent periods and the appellant was allowed to avail the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on all the impugned services. No appeal has been filed by the department against the said order and the department has accepted that the appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat Credit in respect of services in dispute and accordingly, the said order has attained finality, which is evident from the RTI reply provided by CPIO in respect of the status of the order dated 27.07.2016 which has been furnished by the appellant. She also submits that it is settled proposition of law that the department cannot take contrary stands in proceedings on the same issue for the same assessee. In this regard, she relies on the following cases.  Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-II vs. SS Engineers vide Order dt. 07.07.2023 (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2019Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. vs. Comm.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 30 June, 2010

 Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Ahmedabad vide Final Order No. A/11238/2023 dated 12.06.2023  M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur - 2019-TIOL-3280- CESTAT-DEL 4.9 As regards extended period of limitation, the ld. Counsel submits that the demand is time barred as the show cause notice 9 E/417-418/2012 dated 07.01.2011 for the period December 2005 to August 2010 was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation in absence of any element of mala fide and suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. She also submits that the appellant duly filed the returns with full disclosure of the Cenvat Credit amount availed on the input services and the department was already aware of the fact about availment of Cenvat Credit of tax paid on input services. Therefore, extended period in such a case cannot be invoked. In this regard, she relies on the following case:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next