9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debit notes it is seen that some of these debit notes do not bear the service tax registration number. Learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that service tax as per these debit notes have been paid and that they are able to establish the same. In such circumstances I am of the view that the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify these debit notes. - Decided in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and education cess for the month of October, 2008 as ₹ 41,94,127/- and ₹ 1,25,824/- respectively. That in this way the appellants had taken excess opening balance of ₹ 17,99,774/- collectively for service tax and education cess, and had thus wrongly availed credit. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant, that while filling the ST-3 return as Input Service Distributor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount under dispute (i.e. ₹ 17,99,774/-) have been availed by the appellants on the basis of debit notes issued to the appellants by their C F agents. The appellants relied upon the decisions rendered in Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2010 (1) TMI 404-CESTAT, Ahmedabad, to substantiate their plea that error in ST-3 return is only a procedural omission and credit is admissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es did not contain the service tax registration of the service provider to ascertain whether the service tax has been actually paid. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records, it is seen that the appellant has claimed Cenvat credit of ₹ 17,66,710/- on debit notes. Further, the amount was not included in the closing balance in ST-3 returns for the month September, 2008 due to clerical er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
