Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

over 1 year ago

•View on š•

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—–š—µš—®š—»š—±š—¶š—“š—®š—æš—µ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—–š—˜š—”š—©š—”š—§ š—–š—æš—²š—±š—¶š˜ š—®š—»š—± š—Ÿš—®š˜š—² š—Øš˜š—¶š—¹š—¶š˜‡š—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—» šŸ“¢ The Tribunal ruled: "CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because it was utilized late or not reflected in the ST-3 Returns."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Antares Services Pvt. Ltd. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²:Can the appellants take credit on invoices beyond the one-year permissible period?

š—£š—æš—¼š—°š—²š—²š—±š—¶š—»š—“š˜€: A show-cause notice was issued, based on Income Tax Department data, alleging that the appellants failed to file ST-3 Returns from April 2014. The appellants claimed sufficient credit to pay service tax, but the Department contended they claimed credit on invoices beyond the one-year permissible period, resulting in the demand..

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely due to late utilization or failure to reflect it in ST-3 Returns, as long as services were availed, tax was paid, and proper documentation existed. The show-cause notice lacked evidence of fraud or suppression, making the extended period inapplicable.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Antares Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼.60306 of 2022 [SM] š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 25 January 2024

šŸ“œ This ruling reinforces that procedural lapses do not invalidate the right to claim CENVAT credit, especially when the appellant possesses valid documentation and the service tax has been paid.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on š•

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own