Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III (now Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Gurugram) Versus M/s Chang Yun India Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1507 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
CEA No.36 of 2018 (O&M)
Central Excise
MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ.
For The Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocatea
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL J.
The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh arising out of Appeal No. E/395/2012, raising the following substantial questions of law:-
“(i) Whether the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 Annexure A-4 passed b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
benefit of CENVAT Credit for 'rent service', when admittedly, the part of premises has been sub leased to sister concern and therefore that part of service is not availed and does not have nexus with manufacturing process?
(iv) Whether Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in not considering the provisions of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which categorically provides for the documents on the basis of which CENVAT Credit may be claimed by the party?
(v) Whether the Ld. CESTAT has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal of the respondent and allowing CENVAT Credit claimed by the respondent on the basis of debit notes which does not find mention in Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
(vi) Whether in the facts and c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =