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. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur

2015 (7) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 such effective date i.e. 10.09.2004, will be el .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ced 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 Department to prove that the works/ service h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 service provider, M/s Mcnally Bharat Enginee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ies 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 the Ld. Counsel of both sides and perused 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

 

 

 

 

 

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