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

2015 (6) TMI 1078 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2015 (6) TMI 1078 - CESTAT BANGALORE - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 253 (Tri. - Bang.) - Cenvat credit - appellant took credit of service tax paid on the services received from two Architect firms during October, 2003 - in both the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken, service tax amount had not been shown separately - Held that:- even though several arguments were advanced as to the eligibility of appellant on the ground that the amount was treated as cum-tax amount by both the service receiver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertificates from the service providers that they had paid tax promptly - Held that:- in the case of one service provider, the final invoice copy was also produced which showed service tax amount paid separately and this amount is more than ₹ 74,000/-. This would show that the claim of appellant that both the service provider and the service receiver believed that the amount originally invoiced was cum-tax amount and in one case, the final invoice was also issued confirming the bona fide be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch did not show service tax separately. Therefore, invocation of extended period to demand the amount of credit taken cannot be sustained. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - ST/1112/2012-SM - Final Order No. 21300/2015 - Dated:- 10-6-2015 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri N. Anand and K.S. Ravi Shankar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order]. - The appellant is engaged in providing consulting engineer services. In respect of two projects .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

had been paid promptly at the appropriate time in accordance with law and the returns also have been filed with the department. The credit has been denied only on the ground that according to Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules as it existed, there was a requirement that service tax amount should be shown separately. 2. Even though several arguments were advanced as to the eligibility of the appellant on the ground that the amount was treated as cum-tax amount by both the service receiver and se .....

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