2016 (7) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3/2016 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 dated 24/01/2012 invoking the extended period proposing to disallow credit on service tax paid on input services for the period February, 2008 to June 2009. After .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents 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. whether the Commissioner(Appeals) has power to accept and consider additional evidence (the originals of bills / invoices). He referred to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Centr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uced. 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 Commissioner(Appeals). Sub-clause (4) of the said rule states that nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of Commissioner(Appeals) to direct the production of any d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X