2012 (9) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the name of appellant s Hyderabad Office, the adjudicating authority should verify invoices, purchase orders and any other document(s) submitted by the appellants and confirm on the basis of it as to whether the services are given in Pune Unit or otherwise - Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an appropriate order in accordance with law and, therefore, the matter needs re-quantification/verifica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing authority. We have gone through the impugned order and in paragraph 11 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under: As the input services, in this case have been received and utilized in Pune Unit, I find no reason to deny the Cenvat credit simply on the ground that the invoices have been issued in the name of Head office address. I therefore hold that the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the amount of credit available to them. As in the case of CCE vs. Ariba Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. by final order No. No. 731 732/2011 dated 31/10/2011 wherein, on similar facts, this Tribunal, has observed that the original authority can go ahead with requantification of the amount of amount on the basis of Chartered Accountant s certificate produced/to be produced by the party. It goes wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X