TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made cenvatable in as much as M/s Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. quoting their own Service Tax Registration No. along with particulars of service tax & Invoice Nos. of respective service providers cannot be considered as valid duty paying document in terms of provisions of Rulem9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - service tax amount shown in the debit notes representing reimbursable expenses is inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d service provider. However, he has denied service tax mentioned in the debit notes issued by the same service provider in relation to reimbursement of expenses on various other services provided by different service provider, mentioned in the said debit notes. 2. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterating the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) refers to Para 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I find that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) while analyzing the admissibility of CENVAT credit of ₹ 7,44,884/- for the period May 2011 to March 2012 which was held to be inadmissible by the adjudicating authority, allowed credit of ₹ 3,59,214/- observing as follows: 5.3.1 In so far as Debit Notes pertaining to Logistics Services (Fees charged as per logistic agreement per quarter) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n documents as per provisions of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5.3.2 In so far as Debit Notes pertaining reimbursement of expenses stated to have been incurred on behalf of the appellants service tax charged on basis of reference of bill no. date of respective service providers, I find that though said services availed by M/s Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. in terms of Logistics Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
