CCGST, Mumbai West Versus Reliance Capital Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 755 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 29-8-2018
Application No. ST\/S\/86030\/2018 In Appeal No. ST\/87548\/2018 – M\/85762\/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
\nShri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the appellant
\nMs. Ginita Badani, Advocate for the respondent
\nORDER
\nHeard on the stay petition filed by the appellant department for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), GST & CX, Mumbai on 29.12.2017 setting aside the order-in-original no. ADC\/MM\/6 and 7\/2012-13 dated 16.10.2012 that confirmed duty demand against cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 27,83,751\/- holding the same as in<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ondent and therefore not staying of proceedings would not cause any material gain to the respondent. She further submits that no such recurrence of invoicing which was considered to be improper has been made in the subsequent financial years for which grant of stay is uncalled for. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CCGST, Mumbai West Versus Reliance Capital Ltd.Service Tax2018 (9) TMI 755 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 29-8-2018Application No. ST\/S\/86030\/2018 In Appeal No. ST\/87548\/2018 – M\/85762\/2018Service TaxDr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the appellant Ms. Ginita Badani, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Heard on the stay petition … Continue reading “CCGST, Mumbai West Versus Reliance Capital Ltd.”<\/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-13714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13714","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=13714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Perused the case records and it is observed that cenvat credit availed by the respondent\/OP was held to be inadmissible and duty demand as made, was confirmed by the first adjudicating authority with ancillary relief but the same was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that such finding on invoicing procedure was too technical. Be that as it may, bereft of discussion on the merit of the case, it is apparently clear that no such inconvenience would<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n