9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of service by the courier to the vendor of the goods. The appellant is not the recipient of courier service referred to in the debit note and has not taken the credit of any tax paid on the provision of said service to the vendor of the goods in question - In absence of eligibility to take such credit and, in absence of any evidence that the ineligible credit was availed in the first ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to the period from October 2008 through November 2012. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. 3. The confirmation of demand relies on third proviso in sub-rule 7 of rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which is extracted below:- (7) The CENVAT credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which the invoice, bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said rule has been incorrectly applied inasmuch as the proviso is limited to input service whereas the present dispute pertains to debit note raised in connection with goods that were not in compliance with the agreed upon terms of supply. By no stretch of imagination can a debit note, arising from contractual liability, be considered to be a credit note relating to rending of a service. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
