Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 280 - CESTAT NEW DELHIInvokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit to recipient of service - service tax paid to the tour operator for arranging transport facility for travelling of the employees from residence to factory and vice-versa - non-disclosure of credit particulars with regard to the disputed service in ER-1 returns - Held that:- the issue is no more res integra in view of various judgement. Since the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, we are of the considered view that the service tax paid on such taxable service shall be available for CENVAT credit. Since taking of CENVAT credit on the disputed service is permissible under the statute on merits, setting aside the adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation, in our opinion, will not have any consequence for the Revenue, because on merits, the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit on the disputed service. It is found that filing of appeal by the respondent/assessee is not in conformity with Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 in-as-much-as the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Since the respondent/assessee is not aggrieved by the impugned order, the appeal filed by it is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee is dismissed. - Appeals disposed of
|