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

2015 (7) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (7) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Cenvat credit - service tax taken by the appellant on the services indicated in the invoices were received prior to 10.09.2004, when the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not in vogue - Held that:- the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were framed vide Notification No. 23/04-CE(NT), dated 10.09.2004. In Rule 3 of the said Rules, the embargo has been created, which is to the effect that input service received by the manufacturer of the final product on or after su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4. However, I find from the certificate produced by the appellant that the service provider M/s Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. vide their certificate dated 11.09.2007 has categorically stated that work/service relating to the disputed invoices were completed after 10.09.2004. - Though the said certificate was produced by the appellant before the authorities below, but no findings have been recorded in dis-proving the same and since no material evidence has been brought on record by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals)-Jaipur-II, wherein cenvat credit of service tax taken by the appellant has been denied on the ground that the services indicated in the invoices were received prior to 10.09.2004, when the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not in vogue. 2. Sh. Vipul Agarwal, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that with regard to the four numbers of disputed invoices issued by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

certificate was produced before the authorities below, but no findings were recorded as to why the same cannot be accepted as proof of completion of the work after the effective date. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, the onus lies with the Department to prove that the services were provided prior to 10.09.2004 have not been satisfactorily discharged. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR, Sh. RK Mishra appearing for the Respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard .....

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