Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 673 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-4-2018
APPEAL Nos. ST/87792, 87798/2017 – ORDER No. A/86095-86096/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Shri Mehul Jivani, Chartered Accountant, for appellant
Shri Vivek Dwivedi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
ORDER
A show cause notice was issued for denying and recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the input service distributed. The demand was confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appellant is before me.
2. Shri Mehul Jivani, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity shall exclude on the definition of input service with effect from 1.4.2011. I find that Rule 14 applies to the person who avails credit wrongly which is recoverable. In the present case, the appellant has not availed the credit whereas they have distributed the input service credit to their respective manufacturing unit who, in turn, availed the credit. If at all credit has to be denied, it can be denied at the end of such manufacturing unit which has availed the cenvat credit. Input service distributor does no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =