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 →

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II

2016 (2) TMI 592 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax - Recovery of duty under Section 11A(1)- violation of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - invoice raised in respect of Calico land which was not incorporated in the manufacturing premises and in respect of certain invoice credit was sought to be denied on the ground that service tax registration no. of supplier were not mentioned in their invoices - Held that:- It is a fact that the land belonging to Calico was purchased by the appellant in an auction got .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

excise registration at the time when the services were availed is only a procedural lapse which was rectified subsequently by the service tax authorities w.e.f 16.05.2008 by including the said land in the registration certificate of the appellant. Thus in considered view, input service credit cannot be denied on this mere procedural lapse to the appellant - It is pertinent to note that in respect of few invoices issued by the service providers, the appellant had admitted the wrong availment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty of equal amount under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. - In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that they are entitled to Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,82,437/- but they are liable to penalty of equal amount of the credit wrongly availed to the tune of ₹ 72,675/-. - Appeal No. E/1165/10- Mum - A/85795/16/SMB - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - Hon ble Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cility in respect of the inputs, capital goods and input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The appellants were issued show-cause notice dated 06.10.2005 for recovery of duty amounting to ₹ 5,55,112/- under Section 11A(1) of the Act allegedly for violation of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the appellant has claimed service tax credit on the basis of invoice raised in respect of Calico land w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with penalty and interest. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the present appeal has been filed. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the show-cause notice is time barred as the same has been issued beyond one year. He also submitted that appellant has applied for inclusion of the Calico in their RC vide letter dated 20.12.2007 and the same was granted by the excise authorities with effect from 16.05.2008. The non-inclusi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

so submitted that in order to protect this land from trespassing, compound wall was constructed by the contractor and the invoice issued by the contractor are only in the name of the appellant. They have also attached the invoice and the purchase order in the present appeal. Further submission of the counsel is that M/s. Ex-serviceman Airlinks Services Ltd. had a valid service tax registration no. but the Jt. Commissioner ignored this aspect. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the findings .....

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. It is a fact that the land belonging to Calico was purchased by the appellant in an auction got conducted by the Gujarat High Court and appellant took possession of the same in the year 2005. They applied for inclusion of Calico land in their RC vide their letter dated 20.12.2007 and the same was granted by the excise authorities with effect from 16.05.2008. It is also a fact that the wall around the Calico land was got constructed by the appellant; purchase order as well as invoice are also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ght to be denied in respect of three invoice nos. 14, 236, 239 issued by the M/s. Ex-serviceman Airlinks Services Ltd. amounting to ₹ 1,08,930/- only on the ground that the service tax registration no. is not mentioned in the invoice issued by them to the appellant. 8. Ld. Counsel submitted that service provider had the registration under the service tax but inadvertently registration no. is not mentioned in the invoice. He produced certificate of service tax registration of the service pr .....

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