9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 100 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of debit notes which could not be considered to be eligible documents for the purpose of availment of credit - Held that - the said issue stands decided in the same assessee s case 2017 (10) TMI 1043 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , laying down that the credit availed on the basis of debit notes cannot be denied. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the invoices are in the name of the assessee s Head Office, whereas the credit has been availed in the factory premises - Held that - the issue have been covered in the case of M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus CCE Meerut-II (Vice-Versa) 2016 (9) TMI 681 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where it was held that the credit remains allowed - Similarly, the bills for renting of various offices having been raised in the name of the head office, have been held to be eligible documents. CENVAT credit - service tax paid on the telephone bills, which telephones are installed in the residence of the employees as also in the schools run by the appellant themselves for the welfare of the children of the employees - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that - Tribunal in the appellant s own case has held such credit as admissible. CENVAT credit - service tax paid on insurance of the vehicles - Held that - said issue decided in the case of M/s JSW Steel (Salav) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad 2016 (8) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where relying on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DSCL Sugar Vs. CCE, Lucknow 2012 (12) TMI 830 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the credit of the insurance services is allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on the basis of debit notes - Denial of Cenvat Credit due to invoices being in the name of Head Office - Disallowance of credit on service tax paid on telephone bills - Denial of credit on service tax paid on insurance of vehicles - Imposition of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals) Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on the basis of debit notes: The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowing credit based on debit notes had been previously addressed in the same assessee's case. It was established that credit availed through debit notes cannot be denied, as per Final Order No.71133/2017-SM [BR] dated 15.09.2017. 2. Denial of Cenvat Credit due to invoices being in the name of Head Office: The Tribunal referenced a previous decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Vs. CCE to support the argument that denial of credit based on invoices being in the name of the Head Office, while credit was availed at the factory premises, was not a valid ground. The Tribunal also upheld that bills raised in the name of the Head Office for renting various offices were deemed eligible documents. 3. Disallowance of credit on service tax paid on telephone bills: The Tribunal found that the denial of credit on service tax paid for telephones installed in employees' residences and schools run by the appellant was unfounded. A previous decision in Final Order Nos.70296-70297/2017-SM dated 16.03.2017 supported the admissibility of such credit. 4. Denial of credit on service tax paid on insurance of vehicles: The Tribunal addressed the issue of denying credit on service tax paid for vehicle insurance, citing various decisions such as Forge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, JSW Steel (Salav) Ltd. Vs. CCE, and Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE. It was concluded that this issue had been settled and the denial was not justified. 5. Imposition of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals): Regarding the penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal held that the issue of interpreting the law did not warrant penalties. The Tribunal referenced a case involving Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE to support the decision that penalties were not necessary in such cases. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were rejected. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing all appeals with consequential relief. The judgments delivered by the Tribunal in various cases were instrumental in determining the outcomes of each issue raised in the appeals.
|
