9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manpower is part of the agreement. Nowhere in the agreement it is shown how the quantification is to be done. In the absence of these things, the contention of the counsel is not acceptable that transportation of employees is part of manpower supply. Therefore in the absence of concrete evidence by the appellant the input service credit is denied. Further, I find that there was no intention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as amended. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant have taken the service for supply of manpower and M/s. Sanjay Services raised two bills for supply of manpower and transportation of manpower to their factory. As the transportation of employees is part of manpower supply service, therefore appellant took credit of the same. During the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir factory was not permitted as part of manpower supply service. Therefore credit be allowed. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the counsel and submits that transportation of employees qualifies under rent-a-cab service as per Section 659105O) of the Finance Act, 1994, and nowhere in the agreement with M/s. Sanjay Services it is shown that the manpower is to be supplied at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no intention of the appellant to avail inadmissible, credit. Therefore penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted. Further, I find that the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation as there was no malafide intention of the appellant to avail inadmissible credit. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable. 7. In the nutshell, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
