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>Appellant's Cenvat credit on Land Development Charges allowed after evidence presented</h1> <h3>Youngshin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai</h3> The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steering parts, availed cenvat credit on service tax paid on Architectural Services and Land Development Charges. ... CENVAT credit - input services - credit service tax paid Land Development Charges - duty paying document - registration of services supplier - Held that: - the Land Development Charges is collected on cum tax value basis as provided in the agreements entered into between the parties. The appellant has paid the Land Development charges including service tax he would be eligible for credit - quantum of service tax pertaining to the Land Development Charges has to be determined for which reason, matter is remanded - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Disallowance of credit on input services - Land Development ChargesIn this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Steering parts and Power Steering pump, availed cenvat credit on service tax paid on Architectural Services and Land Development Charges. The original authority disallowed the credit on Land Development Charges, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the service provider had obtained service tax registration and provided documents showing payment towards Land Development Charges, requesting a remand for verification. The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Member (Judicial) found that the disallowance was due to insufficient details on the invoices regarding the service provider's registration number and the correct amount of service tax paid. The appellant demonstrated through documents that Land Development Charges were collected on a cum tax value basis as per agreements, with payment inclusive of service tax. Therefore, the appellant should be eligible for credit, but the specific amount of service tax related to Land Development Charges needed determination. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide on the eligibility of credit for service tax paid on Land Development charges. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
