New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 545 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (4) TMI 545 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Entitlement of Cenvat credit - Service tax paid on Group Personal Accident Insurance (GPA) policy, General Insurance, Repair and Maintenance of Vehicles used for providing the taxable service, Vehicle Insurance Charges, Worksmen Compensation Insurance (WC) Policy and Outdoor catering service. - Held that:- since the amount of disputed Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,76,214/- is prior to 01.04.2011, and in view of the fact that the phrase “activity relating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore, the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the disputed services prior to 01.04.2011. - Decided in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No. E/50095/2016-E[SM] - Final Order No. 51153/2016 - Dated:- 5-4-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. H.V. Girnikar (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER PER S K MOHANTY: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Girnikar, the Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that out of the service tax demand of ₹ 10,17,438/-, the appellant had voluntarily deposited the service tax of ₹ 3,14,172/- for the reason that the services are not confirming to the definition of input service contained in the amended definition with effect from 01.04.2011. With regard to disallowance of Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,76,214/-, the submission of the Ld. Consultant is that the disputed services a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d services prior to the period 01.04.2011, the Ld. Consultant has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Pune-III [2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.)], CCE Nagpur vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (20) STR 577]. 3. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Mishra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. The definition of Input Ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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