New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 1522 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (12) TMI 1522 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Cenvat credit - Input services - Pnelaty - Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 - Time limitation - I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in as much as on the very same issue of the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on security services, audit had raised objection in the year 2008 (Copy of the letter enclosed at Page No 97 and 98 of Appeal Memorandum). Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed the facts in availing t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case, in brief, are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Fertilizers and Chemicals. During the period December 2006 to November 2011 they had availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 49,78,860/- on various Input Services viz., Manpower Supply to Canteen, Local Guest House, Gardening, Various Construction work related to Township, School, Hospitals, and Outstation Guests. Alleging that the same services do not appears to be covered under the definition of Input Service and has no nexus w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th 11AA of the CEA, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The Ld Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian, for the appellants fairly submits that eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Input Services availed in the residential colony is not admissible to them in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of .....

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 Input Services during the said period was issued. He submits that therefore, there was no suppression of facts on their part, accordingly, extended period of limitation is not attracted. In support, he has referred to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Pragathi Concrete Products 2015(322) ELT 819 (SC). 5. Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I find that that the appellant does not dispute the inadmissibility of .....

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