The appellant constructed a mall. It availed credit of tax paid on input services. The Commissioner disallowed such input credit on the ground that it is not "input service" as defined under Rule 2 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant deposited the amount "under protest". The Appeal filed against this order is allowed by the…

The respondent assessee undertook a works contract for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of project. The supply included manufactured as well as bought out items. The revenue bifurcated the contract and demanded service tax on technical assistance rendered during the said project under “consulting engineer” service. A demand of about Rs.2 crores was confirmed along…

The petitioner is a stock broker. It is registered with the service tax department. It received a notice for audit to be conducted by CERA. Such notice was challenged before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on the ground, inter alia, there is no jurisdiction to conduct audit in terms of Rule 5A of the Service…

The petitioner is a pharmaceutical company. It took over business of another pharmaceutical company. It applied for registration in 2020 and sought refund of accumulated inverted input tax credit. It could not file refund electronically (on the portal) as it was not registered during the period in question. Accordingly, it filed manual refund application (through…

The assessee is a manufacturer of particle board. It is exempt from payment of central excise duty. During the course of manufacture, intermediate product viz. impregnated paper comes into existence. The Revenue proposed to demand central excise duty on such intermediate products. Periodical show cause notices were issued and demands were confirmed. The appellate authority…

The petitioner is undertaking works contract for the State Government. It could not file GSTR-3B return in time for want of receipt of consideration. The input tax credit was disallowed on the ground that the time under section 16(4) of the CGST had lapsed. Accordingly, demand was confirmed. the Petitioner had challenged the Section 16(4)…