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>Tribunal rejects collective CENVAT credit claims based on joint ownership, citing individual appellants' names</h1> <h3>Kiran Devchand Shah, Suverna Mohanlal Vora Shruti Subodh Shah Neeta Shantilal Shah Subodh Shantilal Shah Sandeep Kantilal Shah Uday Bhaichand Shah Sanjay Kantilal Shah (HUF) Trupt Aashish Shah Praveen Popatlal Shah Malati Popatlal Shah Shashikant Bhaichand Shah Sushma Shashikant Shah Rakhi Kiran Shah Aashish Kiran Shah Snehlata Rasiklal Shah Pratibha Kiran Shah Sandeep Kantilal Shah Versus CCE, Belgaum</h3> Kiran Devchand Shah, Suverna Mohanlal Vora Shruti Subodh Shah Neeta Shantilal Shah Subodh Shantilal Shah Sandeep Kantilal Shah Uday Bhaichand Shah Sanjay ... Issues:Appeals arising from a common impugned order dated 11.5.2010 involving rejection of appeals and confirmation of Orders-in-Original by the Commissioner (A) for 18 appellants regarding availing CENVAT credit based on invoices not in their individual names.Analysis:The appeals involved 18 appellants who jointly owned a property rented out to various entities, each receiving rent individually and paying service tax separately. The Department alleged that CENVAT credit was wrongly claimed based on invoices in the name of 'D.C. Shah and Others' instead of individual names. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposing penalties. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals.The appellants argued that using 'D.C. Shah and Others' was a long-standing practice due to joint ownership and administrative convenience. They contended that the invoices contained necessary details and the credit was legitimate. They cited relevant case laws supporting their position. However, the Department maintained that individual rent receipts were separate for service tax purposes, and CENVAT credit could not be claimed based on invoices not in the individual's name, as per Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules.The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (A)'s decision. It emphasized that individual appellants, despite being separate entities for registration, could not collectively claim CENVAT credit based on joint invoices. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument of administrative convenience and distinguished the case laws cited, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on invoices under the name of 'D.C. Shah and Co.'In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all 18 appeals, upholding the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) and affirming the rejection of CENVAT credit claims based on invoices not in the individual appellants' names.(Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/11/2016)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
