CENVAT Credit Rules 2004
6 articles
Rule 6(5) and the 'Exclusively' Test: Madras High Court Upholds Full CENVAT Credit for an IT Park Operator but Sustains Service Tax on Fit-Out Charges
In Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd., a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reads the word 'exclusively' in Rule 6(5) literally, rejects a Board circular as irrelevant, and yet rules for the Department on service tax on fit-outs.
13 min readCENVAT Credit on Capital Goods Supplied Under a Works Contract Is Not Barred by the Contractor's Valuation Under Rule 2A: CESTAT Chennai in Toshiba JSW Power Systems
A Chennai Bench of the Tribunal accepted that the supply and erection orders were one works contract, yet allowed the recipient's credit, setting aside a notice demand of Rs.1,93,97,137. The credit bar in the Explanation to Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not follow the goods into the recipient's hands, and the extended period was held unavailable.
15 min readCredit of Concessional Countervailing Duty on Imported Coal Is Not Cut Down by Excise Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals Against Hindustan Zinc
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has refused to read the excise-side restrictions of Rule 3(1)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 into Rule 3(1)(vii), upholding Hindustan Zinc's credit of concessional additional customs duty on imported steam coal across five demands totalling Rs.51,47,27,714. The reasoning is brief and leans on a Calcutta High Court ruling and a departmental advisory minute, which makes its limits as important as its result.
14 min readBagasse Is Not 'Manufactured': CESTAT Hyderabad Applies DSCL Sugar to Quash an ₹80.28 Lakh Cenvat Credit Demand Against Gayatri Sugars
A decade after the Supreme Court in Union of India v. DSCL Sugar Ltd. settled that bagasse is agricultural waste and not the result of any manufacturing process, sugar mills are still fighting the same demand under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. CESTAT Hyderabad's Final Order in Gayatri Sugars shows why the point keeps recurring — and what it takes to close it out on appeal.
14 min readStatement First, Cross-Examination Second: CESTAT Allahabad Invokes Section 9D of the Central Excise Act to Quash a ₹2.39 Crore Cenvat Credit Fraud Demand Against Rathi Steel and Power
A Ghaziabad steel manufacturer was one of 68 noticees accused of availing Cenvat credit on cenvatable invoices issued without any actual supply of copper scrap. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the ₹2.39 crore demand confirmed against it, holding that the adjudicating authority relied on third-party statements without following Section 9D of the Central Excise Act's mandatory procedure for admitting them in evidence, treated a co-noticee's settlement under an amnesty scheme as proof against unrelated parties, and confirmed the demand through generic findings that never engaged the appellant's own case.
14 min readJudicial Discipline Binds the Revenue Too: Delhi High Court Quashes a GST Demand That Defied a Binding CESTAT Refund Order
Welspring Universal was handed a Rs. 76,72,000 demand for a CENVAT refund the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had already held it was entitled to keep, on limitation grounds the Tribunal had already rejected. The Delhi High Court quashed the demand, holding that a departmental adjudicating authority cannot treat a superior appellate order as though it does not exist merely because a parallel proceeding remains formally open.
14 min read