9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original authority had disallowed the credit and demanded the same on the ground that the service involved was correctly classifiable under another category namely ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency’. There is no dispute that this service was introduced on 16-6-2005 and that the respondents had availed the impugned service prior to that date. Therefore, the service involved was incorrectly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd. under Rule 15 of CCR. The impugned order vacated the order of the original authority. The Commissioner (A) found that the respondents were eligible for the CENVAT credit availed. The respondents had availed service tax paid under 'Business Auxiliary Service' during the April and July 2005. The CENVAT credit was availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deny the credit. In the instant appeal filed by the Revenue, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged. The ground taken in the appeal is that the service involved was classifiable under the 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency' introduced on 16-6-2005 as the service was received prior to 16-6-2005, the impugned payment of service tax was not validly made. Therefore, credit could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice' and tax collected from the service provider. As the respondents had paid the service tax and taken credit on the basis of valid documents, its eligibility to such credit cannot be questioned on the basis that the assessment of the service by the Department at the end of the service provider was incorrect. I find that no valid grounds have been raised to question the correctness of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
