9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2003 (1) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY). The intention of the Government is also express, that it is not to disallow the CENVAT Credit for the previous period as there is no such specific bar in the subsequent N/n. 1/2006. This view is further fortified by the view taken by CBEC Circular with respect to brought forward CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 sub Rule 3 when the disability of utilisation of 20% was removed. CENVAT credit utilisation justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Appeal No. ST/86188/15 - ORDER No.A/93942/16/SMB - Dated:- 15-11-2016 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Amit Agarwal, C.A., for Appellant Shri S.R. Nair, E.O. (AR), for Respondent Per: Raju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Afcon Infrastructure Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-1818-CESTAT-MUM. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Archivista Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd.- 2015-TIOL-1278-CESTAT-MUM. In para 7 of the said order, the Tribunal has observed as follows: - 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the appellant have rightly taken credit for the input services received and availed admittedly prior to 1-3-2006 although credit for the same have been taken on 1-4-2006, subsequent to coming into force of Notification No. 1/2006, following the ruling of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh accumulated CENVAT credit so long as no CENVAT credit is taken on the inputs/capital goods or input services used in the rendering of the service in the given case or contract and we hold accordingly. I find that the aforesaid decisions squarely cover the issue in hand. 4.2 Learned AR has relied on the decision of Afcon Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). I find that the facts in the said case are significantly different from the facts in the instant case. 5. Relying on the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Archivista Engineering Products (supra) and Bharat Heavy Electricals (supra) , the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 15.11.2016) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
