9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions for the period from April, 2004 to August 2004, Cenvat Credit of Rs. 18,699/- was denied on the ground that invoices containing the address of appellants Mumbai and Ahmedabad as said address was not declared in their ST-1 registration form, the credit of Rs. 17,97,248/- was denied on the ground that the same was wrongly adjusted under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 the demand of Rs. 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 Rs. 14,61,184/- + Rs. 4,29,889/- + 18,299/- + 17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on behalf of the respondent submits that in view of various judgements, it is settled that even though, the Service Providers has not mentioned the registration in their invoices, the credit cannot be denied. As long the Service recipient has reimbursed the bill amount which include the Service Tax. 7. As regard, the credit of Rs. 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 Rs. 17,97,248/- he submits that in terms under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of central ,Goa Vs. Essel Propack Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 52 (Bombay) * Shail Engineering & Service Tax. Vadodara Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara [2015] 54 taxmann.com 353 ( Ahmedabad - 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability from the date the Cenvat Credit taken till the Service Tax paid by the Service Providers, however, for this reason, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied, therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 12. As regard, the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 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 Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
