9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal manufacturer. 2. Shri Mrugesh Pandya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that even though the address of the job worker is given in the invoice since the goods were used for the manufacture of goods belonging to the principal manufacturer, credit cannot be denied. He further submits that the name of the appellant is correctly mentioned in the invoices. He submits that there was a limited allegation in the show cause notice about the mention of address, however, both the lower authorities have traveled beyond the scope of show cause notice and decided that there is no evidence about receipt and use of the inputs. Since this ground is beyond the show cause notice, credit cannot be denied on this ground. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). Reliance Securities Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II-2019(20) G.S.T.L. 265 (Tri. - Mumbai). 3. Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that in the show cause notice the only allegation is that the inputs used in the job worker premises and the address of job worker is mentioned in the invoices. We find that only because the invoices bear the address of the job worker where the name of the appellant is correctly mentioned, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Since goods have to be processed by the job worker obvious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARA-I. 3. The Short question involved in the present case is: whether the appellants are eligible to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on 'Courier Service' which are used for sending documents, samples, finished goods etc. during the disputed period. 3. I find that Courier service used for sending documents, samples, finished goods, etc. is held to be an input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Hylden Glass Ltd. vs CCE & S.T. Vadodara I, Final Order No. A/11924-11951/2017 dated 30.06.2017 and the service tax paid on such service is eligible to CENVAT Credit. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I do not find merit in the impugned orders, consequently, the same are set aside and the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
