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 →

Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeal) -VADODARA-I

2016 (12) TMI 1522 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

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 the credit on such Input Services from the know .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gaged 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 with the manufacturing activity, a demand notic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 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 CCE Vs Gujarat Heavy Chemicals - 2011(22)STR.6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssued. 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 the credit availed on the Service Tax paid on .....

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