Assistant Commissioner of central Goods And Service Tax, Division – VIII (VEJALPUR) Versus Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited
Central Excise
2017 (10) TMI 82 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 105 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-9-2017
TAX APPEAL NO. 761 of 2017
Central Excise
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV
\nFor The Appellant : Priyank P Lodha, Advocate
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. Department is in appeal against the judgment of CESTAT dated 20.01.2017 raising following questions for our consideration:
\n “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the penalty as bein<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n The assessee relied on the decision of this Court in case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. C.C.E & Customs reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.). The department on the other hand relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of 2014 (35) STR 865. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment confirmed the stand of the department that the cenvat credit was not available to the assessee. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Bharti Airtel. The decision in case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. (supra) referred by this Court involved different facts. With respect to penalty however, the Tribunal was of the opinion that being a disputable<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ent view. We may record that the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to cenvat credits on such inputs is challenged by some of the telecom companies and the Tax Appeals are admitted. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Assistant Commissioner of central Goods And Service Tax, Division – VIII (VEJALPUR) Versus Vodafone Essar Gujarat LimitedCentral Excise2017 (10) TMI 82 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 105 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 28-9-2017TAX APPEAL NO. 761 of 2017 Central ExciseMR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV For The Appellant … Continue reading “Assistant Commissioner of central Goods And Service Tax, Division – VIII (VEJALPUR) Versus Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The question of penalty has to be viewed in such background. When the assessee bonafide carrying a belief which cannot be stated to be wholly untenable that cenvat credit on such inputs was available, claimed the same with full knowledge of the department, merely because eventually such credit was disallowed, would not give rise to penalty proceedings. Learned counsel for the department submitted that the penalty was imposed under rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Subrule (1) thereof provides that if any person takes cenvat credit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n