9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance - Held that:- The evidence produced by the respondents before the Commissioner(Appeals) is nothing but originals of the invoices/bills of which photocopies were already produced before original authority. The Revenue has no case that there was discrepancy in the photocopies or originals produced. So also there is no dispute that service tax was paid and accounted for as per the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner(AR) for the appellant Shri Suresh Astekar, Advocate for the respondent Date of decision:15/03/2016 ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] This appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) which allowed credit on various input services. 2. The respondents were issued a show-cause notice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner(Appeals). They furnished the original bills and invoices before Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal in favour of respondents herein. Hence this appeal filed by Revenue. 4. On behalf of Revenue, the learned AR Shri Chatru Singh submitted that though four grounds are raised in the appeal, he confines his argument with regard to one ground only i.e. wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices/bills of which photocopies were already produced before original authority. The Revenue has no case that there was discrepancy in the photocopies or originals produced. So also there is no dispute that service tax was paid and accounted for as per the invoices. Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 referred by appellant/Revenue deals with production of additional evidence before Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
