9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod from October 2010 to July 2011. 2. The denial of CENVAT credit in both the cases is on twin grounds viz. (a) the services on which the credits were taken were not shown to be input services falling under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 and (b) the credits were not taken on valid documents. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire credit was taken of the service tax paid by M/s. Godrej Hershey Ltd. (GHL) on reimbursable expenses incurred by them in connection with the provision of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to the appellant during the material period. He further submits that there was no dispute at the stage of adjudication regarding actual payment of service tax by M/s. GHL and hence there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not input services is not legally valid. The learned Additional Commissioner(AR) reiterates the relevant findings of the Commissioner which are to the effect that M/s. GHL were not the service providers and were only service recipients and hence it was not open to them to issue the documents on the basis of which the appellant took CENVAT credit. It is his submission that the said documents do not disclose any specific service having been provided to the appellant by M/s. GHL. According to the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), M/s. GHL appear to have acted as Input Service Distributor. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, though it is true that the exact nature of the services was not specifically s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FA rent, CFA remuneration, salaries & bonus etc. Whether these expenses incurred by M/s. GHL and reimbursed by the appellant were incidental to the provision of BAS by the former to the latter is the question which at once arises. The learned counsel has argued that all such expenses were incurred by M/s. GHL and reimbursed by the appellant as per the contract of service and hence there is no scope for examining each item of expense with reference to the definition of input service. The learned Additional Commissioner(AR) has opposed this argument. We are of the view that, to examine the nature of the service on which the CENVAT credit in question was taken is within the scope of the show-cause notice in this case and hence it is open to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
