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 →

Bovis Lend Lease India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore

2015 (6) TMI 1078 - CESTAT BANGALORE

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 and service provider and tax had been promptly paid by both the service provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 belief on behalf of both the service receiver and the service provider. In such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iod 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, they had availed the services of Architects and they took credit of service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 service provider and tax had been promptly paid by both the service providers, .....

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