Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur

2015 (10) TMI 1345 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- CENVAT Credit in dispute have been availed by the appellant on two invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor. The Commissioner has not accepted the said invoices in allowing the CENVAT credit on the ground that the supporting documents disclosing the details of services received from the service providers had not been enclosed with the respective input service invoices issued by their registered office as input service distribut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o as to ascertain whether the appellant are eligible on the invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor availed CENVAT Credit in January, 2007. In the result, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 234/2009 - Dated:- 24-3-2015 - D M Misra, Member (J) And I P Lal, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Arvind Baheti, Consultant For the Respondent : Sri A Roy, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: D M Misra: This is an appeal filed against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4. A show cause-cum-demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the total CENVAT Credit of ₹ 4,09,82,981/- including education cess on the ground that the said input invoices were not in accordance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was imposed under Rule 15 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. C.A. Shri Arun Baheti for the applicant submitted that 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

thority, however, denied the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the details of services received by the 'input service distributors' were not disclosed in the input service invoices viz. the name, address and the registration number of the persons providing input services and the Sl. No., date and the invoice No. of challans issued under sub-Rule 1 of the Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules. The Ld. Commissioner had also not accepted the mere consolidated statement furnished along with the sai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version