Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Dr. Reddy s Laboratories Ltd. Versus CC CE&ST Hyderabad-IV

Denial of CENVAT credit - various input services - Held that: - accommodation services, convention service, design services, mandap keeper services, works contract services, interior decorator services, restaurant services, public relations services and general insurance service were allowed by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-original dt. 30/06/2016 for the subsequent period. Further in respect of air travel services and other services in the appellant's own case, the Commissioner(Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant. In view thereof following the view taking in the above decisions, I hold that the denial of credit is unsustainable. - Appeal No.E/23451/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.A/30859/2016 - Dated:- 22-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent. (Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The issue involved in this appeal is denial of CENVAT credit on input services. The appellants are engaged in ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty of ₹ 2,50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeal before the first appellate authority who upheld the order passed by the original authority. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri B. Seshagiri Rao explained the details of credit availed and the input services which was disallowed by the authorities below. The details as put forward by appellant are given in the following table:- SI.No. Nature of services Inadmissible credit (Rs.) 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons services 3,813 16. Insurance Auxiliary Service 735 17. Subscription Service 224 21,66,440 3. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is not pressing the amount of ₹ 11/- shown in Sl.No.13 of the above above table pertaining to the input service viz. authorized service station service in the present appeal. So also, he submitted that out of the total amount an amount of ₹ 1,73,391/- is not pressed for the reason that the said amount was claimed by appellants as duplicatio .....

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