Equisol Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 29-1-2019
APPEAL No. ST\/87289\/2018 – A\/85223\/2019
Service Tax
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Sumit Jhunjhunwala, C.A., for appellant
\nShri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
\nORDER
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. CD\/TR(APPEALS)\/ME\/72\/2017-18 dated 6.3.2018 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & GST (Appeals), Mumbai.
\n3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services which are in the nature of supply of tangible goods during the relevant period 2011-12<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n not raised before the adjudicating authority nor in their reply to the show cause notice. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Equisol Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai EastService Tax2019 (2) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 29-1-2019APPEAL No. ST\/87289\/2018 – A\/85223\/2019Service TaxDr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Sumit Jhunjhunwala, C.A., for appellant Shri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against … Continue reading “Equisol Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East”<\/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-16754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16754","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=16754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that the particulars of disputed invoices against which inadmissible credit alleged to have been mentioned at para 4 of the show cause notice were not the invoices on which credit was availed by them. In support, he has referred to the invoices on which credit was taken, enclosed at pages 94 to 97 of appeal paper book. It is his plea that pursuant to the allegation of non-receipt of the service, they obtained a certificate from the service receiver, namely M\/s. Silicon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and also placed the payment part<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the five disputed invoices on which the appellant had availed credit, are genuine or otherwise. Prima facie I find that the invoices which are mentioned in the show cause notice are not relevant to the proceeding. The invoices which are now produced by the learned AR for the Revenue, being the same also enclosed by the learned CA for the appellant, but different from the ones in the show cause notice, therefore, in my opinion, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact. Needless<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n