M\/s. Accent Pharma Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Pondicherry
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1498 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/42331\/2017 – Final Order No. 41743\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants had availed credit of various input services and Show Cause Notice was issued, proposing to deny the credit availed in respect of certain services. The authorities below have denied credit on a few services and confirmed the demand thereon against which the appellant has filed the present appeal.
\n2. On beh<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Accent Pharma Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, PondicherryCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1498 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-6-2018Appeal No. E\/42331\/2017 – Final Order No. 41743\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are … Continue reading “M\/s. Accent Pharma Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Pondicherry”<\/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-13407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407","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=13407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. 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 relied by the learned Counsel also covers the issue. Hence, I am of the view that the denial of credit on the impugned service is unjustified. It is seen that a consolidated penalty of Rs. 10,000\/- has been imposed under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the major credit of business development service, to the tune of Rs. 92,700\/-, has be<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n