2018 (8) TMI 1498 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – input service – business development services – Held that:- The period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input service included the words ‘activities relating to business’ – denial of credit unjustified.
–
Penalty u/r 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Since the major credit of business development service has been set aside, the penalty is also unwarranted and requires to be set aside.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/42331/2017 – Final Order No. 41743/2018 – Dated:- 7-6-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Res
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e, 2010 to August, 2010 and, therefore, the said services are covered within the definition of input service as it stood during the relevant period. She relied upon the decision in the case of FLOWSERVE SANMAR LTD. Vs. CCE Chennai, 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 375 (Tribunal – Chennai). 3. The learned AR, Shri R. Subramaniyan, supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Counsel has submitted that though various services have been denied credit, as per the impugned order, they are confining their contest only on the credit only in respect of business development services. The period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input service included the words activities relating to business . The decision
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =