9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in few invoices which is only a technical lapse provide other particulars are sufficient to justify the proof of receipt of input service and its utilization. Considering the submissions, these appeals need to be remanded back to the original authority with the direction to consider the documents produced by the appellant before deciding the refund claim of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21799/2016-SM, ST/21800/2016-SM & ST/21801/2016-SM - 20512-20514/2017 - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Siddharth Garg, Authorized Rep., For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR), For the Respondent Per: SS GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules 1994 and for rendering the said services, the appellant has used several input services on which the appellant has discharged the service tax. The appellants are unable to utilize the cenvat credit lying in their account and therefore they have filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification 18/2012 CE dated March 17, 2012. Pursuant to the refund claim filed show-cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing to deny the refund of cenvat credit on input services. After following the due procedure, the Deputy Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim partially on certain grounds and aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing decisions: a) UOI V. Suksha International Nutan Gems Anr - 1989 (39) ELT 503 (SC) b) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited V Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others - 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC) c) Sarabhai Chemicals V. Collector of Customs - 1992 (59) ELT 72 (Delhi Tribunal) d) Ashima Dyecot Ltd. V. CC - 2011-TIOL-905-CESTAT-Ahemdabad e) Seva Systems Private Limited - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 242 f) Malwa Industries Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana - 2004 (178) ELT 783 (Delhi Tribunal) 3.1. He further submitted that it is a settled law that substantive right of the appellant cannot be taken away by resorting to procedural lapse and for this purpose, he relied upon the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Diya Systems (Management) Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Mangalore 2017-TIOL-84-CESTAT-BANG. Wherein this Tribunal by relying upon the decision in the case of Imagination Technologies India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2011 (23) STR 661 (Tri.-Mum.) held that the cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that registration number was not mentioned on the invoices so long as payment of tax and utilization of the service is not disputed. Similarly this Tribunal also relied on the decision in the case of Secure Meters Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2010 (18) STR 490 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that when the receipt of input services is not disputed and the fact that the input service had been used for pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
