9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Service Providers, however, for this reason, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied - Credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - denial on the grounds that it is only name of the appellant - Held that:- Since, all the Offices address which mentioned in the invoices belonging to the same respondent. The respondents have received the service and used by them, therefore, merely because the respondent address is not mentioned, credit cannot be denied - Credit allowed. Adjustment of CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rule, 1994 - Held that:- The respondent are eligible to avail the re-credit of ₹ 17,97,248/- under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 1994 that the same subject to verification of original document by the Lower Authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the same was wrongly adjusted under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 the demand of ₹ 1,23,914/- was confirmed as short payment of Service Tax. Being aggrieved by the said Order in Original dated 28.11.2008 the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the following order. (i) I set aside the order of the Lower Authority as far as disallowing Cenvat Credit of ₹ 14,61,184/- + ₹ 4,29,889/- + 18,299/- + 17,97,248/- under Rule 5 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (ii) I uphold the order of the Lower Authority to the extent of disallowing the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 400/- (iii) I set aside the order of the Lower Authority as far as it relates to confirmation of demand of Service T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has reimbursed the bill amount which include the Service Tax. 7. As regard, the credit of ₹ 18,699/-. He submits that even though, the address in the invoices was mentioned which is of Registration Office of Mundra Corporate Office or Mumbai both the Offices belonging to the respondent and the services was used by the respondent for providing the output service. Therefore, credit cannot be denied. 8. As regard, the credit of ₹ 17,97,248/- he submits that in terms under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules,1994 the respondent made suo-moto of Cenvat Credit which is just and proper. He submits that the respondent being provider of major port services various activities are being done within a limited time frame considering the cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT) Industrial Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2014] 51 taxmann. Com 11 (New Delhi CESTAT) General Electric International Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2009] 21 335 [NEW DELHI CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise-I Vs. SG Analytics (P) Ltd [2016] 72 taxmann.com 180 (Mumbai CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar Vs. Sharma Travel P.K.DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER [2009] 18 STT 333 (NEW DELHI CESTAT) PRACHAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI, NIRMA ARCHITECTS VALUERS Vs. COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, M.V. RAVINDDRAN, JUDICAL MEMBER [2006] 3 STT 176 (NEW DELHI CESTAT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issue. 12. As regard, the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 18,699/-, the Ld. Commissioner allowed the credit on the grounds that it is only name of the appellant. We agree with this finding for the reasons that since, all the Offices address which mentioned in the invoices belonging to the same respondent. The respondents have received the service and used by them, therefore, merely because the respondent address is not mentioned, credit cannot be denied. 13. As regard, the dispute of adjustment of Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 17,97,248/- in terms of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rule,1994. We observed from the impugned order that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent are eligible to avail the re-credit of ₹ 17,97,248/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
