9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he work is sub contracted a different person will carry out the work. Another reason given is that he does not find any name of the sub-contractor in the purchase order. It is not mandatory for the appellant to provide the name of the sub-contractor in the purchase order. There are no justification for denial of CENVAT Credit - the appellant has given details of co-relation of the input services and the out put services and the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denying the credit are without any merit. The impugned order is set aside - The appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. RAJU Shri Ambar Kumrawat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Anand Kumar, Superintendent (Authorized Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contended that they are output service provider and they had availed the credit of service tax paid by their sub-contractors who helped them in executing the work of erection, commissioning and installation of equipment's and thus, they have correctly availed the cenvat credit of service tax paid by their sub-contractors as these are Input Service providers for them. In this regard, I have gone through the documentary evidence provided by the appellant and find that the Installation and commissioning service was provided at the site of the buyers of the Customized Capital equipments such as pollution Control Equipments, Scrubber Systems etc manufactured and sold by the Appellants with the help of sub- contractors. This being the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 dated 06.08.2007 of the said service provider. Thus, the said service has been provided by the other service provider to the appellant much before the contract of the appellant with the client. Further, the appellant has also not submitted the copies of all the invoices/bills in this regard. It is observed that the appellant has not submitted any such evidence to substantiate their claim except few sample copies of invoices/bills, which are not sufficient to come to the final conclusion for the entire credit of Rs.2,85,255/- in respect of SAIL. Further, regarding the credit availed in respect of services provided to Directorate of purchase and stores, Department of Atomic Energy (P.O. No. NFC (68)/PT/TPT/CAP/ 008053/XXXVII/ 2025 dated 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been carried out by somebody else on behalf of the appellant. It is not understood as to how this can be a reason for denying the CENVAT Credit. Obviously when the work is sub contracted a different person will carry out the work. Another reason given is that he does not find any name of the sub-contractor in the purchase order. It is not mandatory for the appellant to provide the name of the sub-contractor in the purchase order. In this background, we do not find any justification and denial of CENVAT Credit. The appellant has given details of co-relation of the input services and the out put services and the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denying the credit are without any merit. 6. In this back ground, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
