TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT grants stay on denial of Cenvat credit, rejects adjournment request</h1> <h3>ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai found in favor of the appellant, granting a stay on the impugned order that denied Cenvat credit on supplementary ... Demand - Application for stay - whether the Noticee is eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices issued by the service providers to him - On being pointed about non-payment of service tax the service providers discharged the tax liability and raised supplementary invoices on the Noticee - Once the assessee is entitled to take credit in relation to the duty paid on the inputs or capital goods and this right being not in dispute, merely because there is some infirmity observed in the document on which the credit sought to be availed, that cannot be a justification for denying the credit - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices; Justifiability of adjournment requestIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit based on supplementary invoices, arguing that there is no provision for claiming such credit in service tax cases. The impugned order highlighted the issue of whether the appellant was eligible to avail Cenvat credit on these supplementary invoices issued by service providers who initially did not pay service tax. The department contended that the service providers were not eligible to issue such invoices, and these documents were not specified for availing Cenvat Credit under relevant rules. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural laws should not be interpreted in a way that denies parties their rights. Despite any document infirmities, if the assessee is entitled to credit for duty paid on inputs or capital goods, the credit cannot be denied solely on that basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for granting a stay on the impugned order. As a result, the demanded amount, interest, and penalty were waived until the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal rejected the department's request for an adjournment, emphasizing that the department had sufficient notice to ensure representation and no justifiable grounds were presented for the adjournment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
