9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER As both the appeals relate to the same appellant concerning dispute on eligibility of input services arising out of common impugned order, hence they are taken-up for common disposal. 2. Dispute in these appeals concerns alleged irregular input credit availed by the appellant on various input services. In proceedings initiated against the appellant, the original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are not contesting the demand made in respect of Award Scheme Event. 2.2 However in respect of Event Management Services, Ld. Advocate submits that these services are very much essential to promote sales of the vehicles manufactured by them and as such they are eligible input services for the purposes of Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004. She however concedes that they were not able to produce com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l authority on this issue. 3. On the other hand, ld. A.R supports the impugned order. He draws attention to para 10 (i) of the impugned order to emphasize that even before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had not produced concrete documentary evidence detailing scope of activities covered by the impugned services. 3. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. Ld.Advocate is not conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as an eligible input service, however remanding the matter to the original authority for the limited purpose of confirming the quantum of such credit that can be availed, by causing verification of the documents that would be produced in such de novo proceedings. So ordered. 5. Coming to the matter of penalty, I take note that appellant is an automobile manufacturing company and the disputed se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
