COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX Vs. DAYALAL MEGHJI AND COMPANY
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-116
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 01,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ashok Jindal, Member (J) - (1.)REVENUE is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that when there is no dispute that services have been received by the respondent and Service Tax thereon has been paid, therefore, respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit. The mere ground for denial of Cenvat credit is that invoice is not in the name of the respondent but it is in the name of respondent's head office. Heard the parties.
(2.)CONSIDERING the fact that there is no dispute that services have been received by the respondent and Service Tax has been duly paid, the only reason for denial of Cenvat credit by the Revenue is that invoices are not in the name of respondent but in the name of respondent's head office. When there is no dispute regarding consumption of services by the respondent and Service Tax has been paid duly thereon, therefore, I hold that respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit although the invoice is in the name of head office. Moreover, it is not disputed that apart from the respondent, somebody else has also taken the credit on these invoices. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.