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 Hindalco Industries Ltd, Shri Saibal Niyogi Versus Commissioner (Appeal) , Central Excise-Vapi

2016 (10) TMI 31 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Recovery of Cenvat credit - Cenvat Credit availed on various input services - input service invoices were in the name of their Head Office, at Mumbai, which was not registered as an Input Service distributor - Held that:- except on the ground that relevant input service invoices were not in the name of their Vapi but in the name of Head Office, and the Head Office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor, the Cenvat Credit availed on such invoices even though the services were utilised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri Jigar Shah, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri A Mishra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. These two appeals are filed against OIA OIA-SRP/65/VAPI/2012-13 dt 10/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise-VAPI. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Foils falling under CH 76 of CETA 1985 and during the period May 2006 to July 2006, they had availed Cenvat Credit on various input servic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

they preferred appeals before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the order and rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 4. The Ld Advocate Shri Jigar Shah for the appellant submits that all the input services had been duly received in their Factory at Vapi and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the excisable goods. Hence, the credit on such Input Services are admissible even though the respective invoices were in the name of the Head Office at Mumbai. It is 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

Ld Commissioner (Appeal). 6. I find that except on the ground that relevant input service invoices were not in the name of their Vapi but in the name of Head Office, and the Head Office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor , the Cenvat Credit availed on such invoices even though the services were utilised in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods at their Vapi unit, had been denied. I find that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in 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

 

 

 

 

 

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