9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C. EX., VAPI VERSUS DNH SPINNERS [ 2009 (7) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ], the Tribunal has held The Revenue in their grounds has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the case of PAREKH P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the invoices of the service providers clearly show that the service was provided to the Jamuria Unit. He submits that while they have given all the documentary evidence to the Adjudicating Authority and lower Appellate Authority, they have not given any findings as to why such clearly established evidence has not been considered by them. 3. He relies on the following case laws:- (i) Commr. of Customs C. Ex., Vapi Vs. DNH Spinners-2009 (16) S.T.R. 418 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) Parekh Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Vapi- 2012 (25) S.T.R. 46 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. He also submits that since they have taken the credit on the basis of proper invoices issued by the service provider and all the Cenvat Credits w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.T.R. 46 (Tri.-Ahmd.), the Tribunal has held as under:- 6 . After hearing both sides, I find that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on the sole allegation that the invoices are in the name of head office, who was not registered as ISD and as such availment of credit on the basis of the same, was not justified. There is no allegation in the said Show Cause Notice that the input services do not stand utilized by the appellant for providing dutiable output services . The appellants, in their submissions before the adjudicating authority, have very clearly held that their manufactured final product is also dutiable as also the input services of erection and installation are covered by these services. The credit of input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
