9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the service tax paid. Period of limitation - Held that: - the Department has raised the demand invoking the extended period of limitation for which there is no evidence at all. I do find substance in this argument put forward by the learned counsel for appellant. Though it is alleged in the show-cause notice that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty, the records before me including the report filed by Department does not reveal any fact of suppression on the part of the appellants. Further it has also to be stated that the appellants have been filing their ST3 returns regularly. Department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that the first appellate authority has recorded a finding that the subject services are used by the appellants to promote their overall business and therefore are eligible as input service, subject to their eligibility, othenwise. After rendering a finding that the services of commissioning and installation, repair and maintenance services are eligible input service, the credit of service tax paid on these services has been denied by the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that the subject invoices are not in order. In other words, the credit has been denied for the reason that the invoice does not contain all the necessary particulars as envisaged in Rule 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and hence the same is disallowed. 5. From the report, it can be safely concluded that the appellant has properly accounted the credit availed by them. The defect if any is only with regard to the particulars which are required to be included in the invoice. In para 12, the first appellate authority opines that appellant had not paid the service tax themselves and that it was paid by their Head Office and therefore the document is not in order. The report called for establishes that there is no dispute with regard to the service tax paid. The ground taken in the report is that the subject services are not eligible as input service. In Demosha Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CCE [2014-TlOL-534-CESTAT] , the non-registration as Input Service D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
