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>Appellate Tribunal overturns denial of Cenvat Credit for loading services, citing lack of evidence and limitation bar.</h1> <h3>M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (Unit I) Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Bolpur</h3> M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (Unit I) Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Bolpur - 2022 (58) G. S. T. L. 313 (Tri. - Kolkata), 2022 (379) E.L.T. 489 ... Issues:Denial of Cenvat Credit for loading services availed by the appellant.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of sponge iron and allied products, filed an appeal against the denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 9,60,443 for the period from March 2011 to July 2011. The denial was based on the issuance of invoices by the Head Office as 'ISD' for loading services provided by M/s. Prithavi Associates. The authorities alleged that the loading services were not related to the manufacturing operations at the unit where the credit was availed. The key issue revolved around whether the loading services availed by the appellant were eligible for credit under the Credit Rules.During the proceedings, arguments were presented by both parties. The authorities had denied the credit on the grounds that the goods for which the loading services were availed had not been physically received by the appellant in their factory. However, the Member (Judicial) found this reasoning flawed as there was no such condition prescribed in the Credit Rules. It was clarified that the appellant would have been eligible for a refund of input service under Rule 5 of the Credit Rules if the goods had been exported, but in this case, the appellant had rightfully availed the credit for payment of output excise duty on goods cleared from the factory.The judgment highlighted that there was no evidence of fraud or suppression in availing the credit, and the demand was also deemed barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned demand was not sustainable on that ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was granted. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 01.10.2021 by the Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
