9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect - The provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, during the period in question in this case, do not provide or explicitly barred utilization of cenvat credit for discharge of Service Tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism. The said clause was introduced with effect from 2012 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/10193/2015, E/CROSS/10280/2015 - A/13142/2017 - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) For Applicant(s): Shri A Mishra, Authorised Representative For Respondent(s): Shri P P Jadeja, Advocate ORDER Per: Shri M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against OIA-AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-099-14-15 dt 18/11/2014 and is filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the grounds of appeal as argued by the Ld. DR, that the First Appellate Authority has erred in setting aside the Order in Original by relying upon various decisions and not considering the provisions of law of taxation of services (provided from outside India and received in India), which provides for taxable services provided from outside India and received in India should not be treated as outside service for the purpose of availing credit of duty paid on Service Tax paid on input services. He has submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 6. Heard Ld. DR and Consultant for the respondent and perused the records. 7. The Ld. Consultant submits that similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of Kansara Modler Ltd Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 2004, during the period in question in this case, do not provide or explicitly barred utilization of cenvat credit for discharge of Service Tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism. The said clause was introduced with effect from 2012. I find that the Ld Consultant was correct in bringing to my notice that identical issue was decided by the Division Bench in the case of Kansara Modler Ltd (supra) the ratio of the said decision which Division Bench would consequently apply in the case in hand. 10. In view of the foe going, I hold that the impugned order is correct and legal, does not require any interference. 11. Acordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. CO disposed off. (Dictated and prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
