Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Meghmani Organics Limited

2015 (9) TMI 821 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services - C&F Agent Service, Courier Services - credit has been disallowed to the appellant on the ground that cenvatable documents are not showing the registration number of the unit who is providing taxable services to the appellant - Held that:- So far as the admissibility of cenvat credit is concerned, the same is covered by the case law of this Bench in the appellant s own case of Meghmani Organics Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (2011 (8) TMI 542 - CESTAT, AHMED .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der was not indicated, it is observed that Respondent subsequently produced necessary certificates from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities showing registration number of the service provider. As per the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, if documents does not contain all the particulars but contains details of service tax paid, description of taxable services etc. then the same can be got verified from the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. Further, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to OIA No. 02/2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD dated 17.01.2013. 2. Shri T.K. Sikdar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has taken credit with respect to C&F Agent Service, Courier Services which is not admissible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as either the services are incurred beyond the factory premises or the services availed are not in relation to the m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r following:- (a) Meghmani Organics Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (26) STR 555 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (b) Meghachem Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (23) STR 472 (Tri. Ahmd.)] That certain cenvat credit has been disallowed to the Respondent on the ground that Registration number of the service provider has not been mentioned in the invoices. Learned Advocate relied upon the case laws of General Manager, BSNL vs. CCE, Lucknow [2014 (36) STR 445 (Tri. Del.)] and Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version