M\/s Baheti Agri Links Versus CC, CGST & CE, Indore
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 958 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 79 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 7-8-2018
S. T. Appeal No. 51195 of 2018-SM – Final Order No. 52743\/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Sh. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial )
\nSh. Krishan Garg, C. A. for the appellant
\nSh. K. Poddar, AR for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer : Ashok Jindal
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit sought to be denied on the premise that the invoices are not in the name of the appellant and on telephone services, Cenvat credit was denied on the premise that telephones were installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the pa<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Heard the parties considered the submissions. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Baheti Agri Links Versus CC, CGST & CE, IndoreService Tax2018 (8) TMI 958 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 79 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 7-8-2018S. T. Appeal No. 51195 of 2018-SM – Final Order No. 52743\/2018Service TaxHon'ble Sh. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) Sh. Krishan … Continue reading “M\/s Baheti Agri Links Versus CC, CGST & CE, Indore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. 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 Departm<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In this case, show cause notice issued to deny cenvat credit to the appellant on the following grounds.
\n (a) The invoices of M\/s Baheti Soya Links are not in the name of the appellant, therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit.
\n (b) telephones were installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the partners.
\nIn 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 a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n