9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned or invoices having hand written number - denial on the premise that the said input service is not covered under 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period prior to 1.4.2011 - Held that: - the Technical Director is an employee of the company who assisted the assessee to do day to day manufacturing operation. The rent paid for technical director as terms of employment and is a part of expenses incurred by the assessee - the assessee is entitled to avail credit of service tax paid on rent for residence of Technical Director. Extended period not invokable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/60889/2017, E/60020/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 62223-62224/2018 - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this, he relied upon the decision of Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co.Pvt.Ltd-2009 (234) ELT 245 (HP) and Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-2010 (18) STR 95 (Tri.- Mum). I have gone through those decisions. In the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), there was dispute regarding availability of input credit on duplicate invoices. The facts altogether are different in the case in hand. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. With regard to the decision in the case of interpretation of provisions of Rule Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co.Pvt.Ltd. (supra), in the said case, Hon ble High Court had rendered the decision with regard to the interpretation of provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of Hon ble High Court in the case of Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co.Pvt.Ltd. (supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. I come to defence taken by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee has not received input service having not paid service tax thereon. These services have been used by the assessee in the course of their business of manufacturing, in that circumstance, it is not the case of the Revenue that these input services are not covered under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the Cenvat credit to the assessee against the invoices wherein the invoice No. is not written or hand written. 7. With regard to the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
