9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd hence there was no input service on which Cenvat credit of service tax could be taken under Rule 2 (l)(i) and rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004 - Held that: - The said ground is not sustainable for the reason that had such Cenvat credit been not admissible, the Revenue could have issued SCN for recovery of such inadmissible Cenvat credit whereas the fact is that no such show cause notices were issued for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Assistant Commissioner and is a 100% EOU. The respondent is registered for providing services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services to their parent company in USA. The respondent filed two refund claims on 22nd April, 2008 under Rule 5 of CCR read with Rule 5/2006-ST for ₹ 4,84,382/- and ₹ 4,81,547/- on the ground that during the month of April, 2007 May, 2007 respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit whereas the fact is that no such show cause notices were issued for recovery of said Cenvat credit. 6. Further, we find that the ground before us is misconceived as the refund of Cenvat credit taken by the manufacturer or provider of taxable service, is admissible to both. Thus, we find no merits in the grounds of appeal filed by revenue and the same is dismissed. The respondent-assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
