9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that name of the appellant is clearly mentioned on the invoices alongwith name and the address of the job worker i.e. M/s. R&C, SBS Marg, Mulund has also mentioned - even though if there is doubt about service recipient due to reason that address of the appellant is not appearing on the invoices, by corroboration of the books of account and payment particulars made against the said invoices, it can be ascertained that service recipient is the appellant and nobody else. However these facts of accounting of bills in the books of account of the appellant and accounting of payment made by the appellant to the service recipient were not verified by the lower authority. In my considered view the matter deserves to be remand to the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of equal amount and demanded interest as proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said original order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected appeal of the appellant vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that Cenvat credit was denied only on the ground that the invoices for services which was received and used at the job worker place were bearing name of job worker, therefore authorities have presumed that the services are not received by the appellant. It is his submission that the fact which is not under dispute that service provider have provided the service to their job worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and Service Tax was made by the appellant to the service provider, these facts constitute that services were received by the appellant and used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final product. In view of this fact merely because name of the job worker is appearing on the invoices, Cenvat Credit could not be denied to the appellant, particularly whin the name of Appellant is also appearing in same invoices. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a)Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Bhubaneshwar [1994(72) ELT 948(Tri.)] (b)Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot [2005(192) ELT 658] (c)Stamed Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [1998(102) ELT 466(Tri)] (d)CCE, Sura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongwith name and the address of the job worker i.e. M/s. R C, SBS Marg, Mulund has also mentioned. As per the submission of the appellant which they have been making before both lower authorities that R C Ltd. is job worker of the appellant and in relation to the job work carried out by the job worker the said service were provided by the service provider in the premises of the job worker on behalf of the appellant. Since, undisputedly the job worker is carrying out job work of the appellant goods, therefore it cannot be presumed that service is provided by the service provider is not for and on behalf of the appellant. I appreciate the submission of the Ld. Counsel that appellant before both the lower authorities made categorical submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
