2018 (8) TMI 1401 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – duty paying invoices – denial on the ground that the invoices are not in the name of the appellant – telephone services – denial of credit on telephone services on the premise that telephones were installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the partners.
–
Duty paying invoices – Held that:- It is a fact on record that service tax paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links has been paid in the name of M/s Baheti Agro Links. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the invoices which are in the name of M/s Baheti Soya Links – credit allowed.
–
Telephone services – Held that:- The telephones is used by the appellant for providing for taxable service and these telephones are installed in the office of the appellant, although in the name of the partners – credit allowed.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – S.T. Appeal No. 51195 of 2018-SM – A/52743/2018-SM[BR] – Dat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
found that M/s Baheti Soya Links was separate entity and cenvat credit was availed on the basis of invoices issued in the name of M/s Baheti Soya Links was denied. It was also sought to be denied that telephone installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the partners. Therefore, they are not entitled to take cenvat credit on telephone services. In these facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny cenvat credit and the matter was adjudicated. Consequently, demand was affirmed alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed. The said order was affirmed the Commissioner. Against the said order, the appellant is before me in the present appeal. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that M/s Baheti Soya Links is a division of M/s Baheti Agri Link and preparing consolidated Balance Sheet in both the cases. It is also contended that services tax paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links has been accepted by the Department and on those services
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
vat credit. (b) telephones were installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the partners. In both the issues cenvat credit has been availed and same was agitated before the adjudicating authority as well as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, ld. Commissioner did not give any finding on the issues of denial of cenvat credit of telephone service. If ld. Commissioner has not discussed the issue, it shows that he has not passed the order in accordance with law. Therefore, the objection of the ld. AR that the issue of telephone services are not before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not tenable. Accordingly, the said objection is turned down. 6. Further, I fund that it is a fact on record that service tax paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links has been paid in the name of M/s Baheti Agro Links. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the invoices which are in the name of M/s Baheti Soya Links. Therefore, I hold that appellant has correctly ava
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =