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 affirms credit eligibility for input services despite predated invoice</h1> <h3>CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-I Versus M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, affirming the respondent's eligibility for credit on input services despite the invoice predating ... CENVAT credit - health insurance service - service received prior to 10.09.2004 - Held that: - it is seen that the services were composite services and the services were received after 10.09.2004 and the payment for the said service is made on 16.12.2004 and thereafter. Therefore, the contention of the department that the appellants received the service prior to 10.09.2004 is baseless. On appreciating the facts and the evidence I am convinced that the respondent has received the service after 10.09.2004 - credit allowed. Health insurance services - Held that: - The issue whether the credit availed on health insurance services prior to 01.04.2011 is covered, by the various judgments - credit allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit on input services availed by the respondent.Analysis:The Department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the respondent credit on input services. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing petroleum products, availed CENVAT credit on various services. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for recovery of credit availed on health insurance services and an invoice dated 07.05.2004, claiming the services were received before 10.09.2004. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit, leading to the Department's present appeal.The Department argued that the credit availed on the 07.05.2004 invoice for input services was irregular as the services were received before 10.09.2004. The respondent's counsel contended that although the invoice was dated 07.05.2004, the service was received after 10.09.2004, supported by payment made on 16.12.2004. The Counsel relied on the broader definition of input services pre-01.04.2011 and cited relevant case law to support the credit eligibility.The main dispute centered around the credit availed on the 07.05.2004 invoice. The Department argued the credit was inadmissible due to the invoice predating 10.09.2004. The respondent's reply to the Show Cause Notice clarified that the services were composite and received after 10.09.2004, with payment made on 16.12.2004. The respondent's detailed explanation and evidence convinced the Tribunal that the services were indeed received post-10.09.2004, justifying the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the credit. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Department's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the respondent's receipt of services post-10.09.2004 despite the invoice date. The broader definition of input services pre-01.04.2011 and the detailed explanation provided by the respondent supported the credit eligibility. The Tribunal found no errors in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the Department's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
