Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

2017 (2) TMI 264 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the appellant should not have taken service tax credit at Nagpur for the services received in Pune. Only the Nagpur premises have been registered whereas the invoices indicate the service recipient at the Pune address - Held that: - the appellants have failed to establish nexus and clearly communicated the nature of services provided by them and why there is no nexus between the services provided by them and the services received by them. Even in grounds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for denial of CENVAT Credit. Earlier the matter had reached the Tribunal and was remanded by the Tribunal with directions. In remand proceedings, both the lower authorities have held against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants before Tribunal. 2. No one appeared for the appellants though matter was listed number of times. 3. From the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellants were registered with the Central Excise department at Nagpur, .....

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 submissions made by the appellant, dropped the demand. On appeal filed by the Revenue before the lower appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), Nagpur considered the matter afresh and he held that CENVAT credit is not admissible and disallowed the credit apart from imposing a penalty of an equivalent amount. The lower appellate authority noted that registration for service tax purpose is based on the premises in Nagpur where business is conducted and if business is conducted from more .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es and whether there is any nexus between the input service received and the output services provided? From the facts available on records it is seen that the input services have been received only after the registration was given at Nagpur and the Pune address did not have any registration at all. If that be so, the question of availing credit by the Pune office does not arise. If it is only mentioning of an incorrect address on the invoices received, it is a curable defect. Therefore, the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble opportunity of being heard to make submissions in their defence before passing the adjudication order. 4. The lower authorities have held against the appellant. Input services on which they have claimed credit pertain to supervision of Toll charges at Alibagh Toll Centre. The appellants are involved in procuring various contracts on commission basis and are registered under Business Auxiliary Service. It is seen that both the lower authorities have held that there is no nexus between input s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is true that for a company operating toll plaza and paying Service Tax on such toll services, would be entitles to input service credit of operating such toll site. The appellants are however engaged in the operating of toll plaza on commission basis and registered under Business Auxiliary Service. They are not providing the toll services. Their job is merely to obtain the contracts. The Order-in-Original has observed as follows: - Their commission includes the activities right from procurement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice under dispute received by them and claimed as input service and output service rendered by Noticee. Thus, though Noticce was given sufficient opportunity in compliance of CESTAT's order dated 12.10.2012, for submission of their claim supported by due evidence for verification, Noticee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate their claim. As such Noticee failed to prove that services in question are input service for rendering output service in order to avail Cenvat Credit of such s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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