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 →

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Salem

2016 (4) TMI 778 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Demand of ineligible Cenvat credit - Telecommunication Service - Availed Cenvat credit on the basis of improper documents - No documentary proof furnished by appellant evidencing payment of service tax by the service providers - Held that:- in view of the apparently conflicting stand adopted by the appellant and by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is but proper that the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority as the allegations require factual verification. - Matter remanded back - S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed CENVAT credit of ₹ 5,79,972/- on the basis of improper documents. A Show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to demand ineligible CENVAT credit of ₹ 5,79,972/- and also to impose penalty under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Original No.41/2012-ST (ADC) dated 30.11.2012, ordered for recovery of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 5,79,972/- and imposed equal amount of penalty u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

il, 2008 to September, 2009 and the fact of receipt of service, payment of service tax along with service charges and the input invoices as per Rule 9 of the CER, 2004, have not been disputed by the department during the audit of the accounts of the appellant. The appellant had submitted sufficient documentary evidence such as GAR-7 challan for payment of service tax by the service providers and their respective registration certificate during the proceedings. The credit availed as input credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n support of her submission. She relied on the Supreme Court decision in CCE, Jalandhar vs. KAY KAY Industries, reported in 2013 (295) ELT 177 (SC). 4. The Ld. AR, Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of both the authorities below and submits that the appellants have contravened the provisions of Rule 2(l), 3(1) and 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in as much as they have availed Cenvat credit of ₹ 5,79,972/- without due verification and diligenc .....

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