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 Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV

2016 (6) TMI 669 - CESTAT KOLKATA

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 by which itself could be made the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 - Order No. FO/75167/2016 - Dated:- 5-2-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,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 tampered by affixing their rubber stamp on the 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

tioned 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 tampered, it was also observed that the appellant .....

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