- All Categories
- Income Tax (1634)
- Students (770)
- Service Tax (497)
- Corporate Law (465)
- Audit (399)
- Accounts (341)
- VAT (277)
- GST (145)
- Excise (106)
- Finance (105)
- Banking (46)
- FEMA (40)
- Custom (29)
- Shares & Stock (18)
- IFRS (18)
- Income Tax Software (5)
- Cost Inflation Index (1)
Recent
- Income Tax Notice Received: What Should a Taxpayer Do?
- IN A GOVT OWENED PSU, MAKE PROVISION IN ACCOUNTS FOR ITEM HAVING CONTIGENCY IN NATURE
- GST Notice Received: How Should a Taxpayer Respond?
- CA vs CMA: Which is better?
- Can a Chartered Accountant Sign Estimated Financial Statements?
- Want to assist in Forensic Audit
- Revising 3CA 3CD to 3CB 3CD
- LFAR in Bank Branch Audit - Clause-by-Clause Discussion by CA Vivek Khurana Notes required
- Bank Branch Audit
- Got high refund
- Form 67
- GSTR9
- Partner of CA firm required
- RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION
- financial statements
- income Tax
- ITR Filing
- Property Attachement
- Liability of Independent and Non-executive director
- financial statements
- stock statement procedure for bank od loan
- ITR FILING OF ARMY UNIT
- signing of Project report
- NON CORPORATE BALANCE SHEET FORMAT
- CA FINAL
- Accounting Treatment of Mutual Fund under IndAS
- ITC Availed & Utilized on Supply from Non-Existent Firms
- GST Liability of Award received by a Company
- Reund of TDS Excess Deposited
- Income Tax TDS
- gst
- Reconstitution of partnership firm in case of death of partner and introduction of new partner
- Consolidattion of financial statemement
- PAYMENT TO OPEN AI AND ENVATO ELEMENT
- NR GST NUMBER
- Presumptive Income
- tax audit late filing penality provision applicable f.y.23-24
- Interest in outstanding demand
- sale turnover declared as per books or AIS show in itr f.y.23-24
- GST
4896
QUESTIONS
4699
ANSWERS
833
EXPERTS
2730
QUERIST
CA Sansaar

Comments
Manish Kr.
12-Apr-2015 , 04:02:14 pmYes Cestat, Bangalore Bench ADC India Communications Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore FINAL ORDER NOS. 286 & 287 OF 2012 APPEAL NOS. E/2180 & 2181 OF 2010 6. As regards the AMC for computers, it is the claim of the appellant that these computers were used for manifold purposes in connection with manufacture and clearance of their products. The learned counsel submits that this fact was not disputed at the lower levels. The learned Superintendent (AR) fairly concedes this position. It appears from the records that a certain part of the CENVAT credit taken on AMC for computers was reversed by the appellant accepting the fact that this much credit was not used in connection with manufacture or clearance of their products. As regards the remaining part of the credit, as already noted, there is no rebuttal of the requisite nexus with the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods. If that be so, the challenge in relation to AMC for computers also must succeed.