GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 669 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (6) TMI 669 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - CENVAT credit denied - input service invoices were tampered by affixing their rubber stamp on the same - Held that:- The consignee address was initially mentioned as the head office of the Appellant but later corrected by the consignor, by mentioning the factory address of the consignee, with due endorsement by affixing the rubber stamp of the consignor. Assuming that the rubber stamp was affixed after providing the service infirmity in the said invoices .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ossession with all the relevant evidences by which they could establish that the input services mentioned in the respective invoices were received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. To ascertain the said fact, in my opinion, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the input services were received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product - Appeal No. EA-416/12 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to March, 2011 amounting to ₹ 58,06,152/-. On adjudication the ld. Commissioner has dropped major portion of the demand, but confirmed demand of ₹ 4,89,013/- and imposed penalty of equivalent amount. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. The ld. Consultant Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay for the appellant submits that out of the said demand of ₹ 4,89,013, the ld. Commissioner has confirmed demand of ₹ 4,68,567/- on the alleged ground that the relevant input service invoices were tamper .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ically submits that the input services mentioned in the respective invoices had been duly received and utilized in their factory, hence satisfies the definition of input service prescribed at Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, therefore CENVAT Credit cannot be denied against those invoices. 4. Per contra, the ld.AR for the Revenue, on the other hand submits that the adjudicating authority besides observing that CENVAT Credit on the invoices is not admissible as the invoices were tampere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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