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 remands Cenvat credit denial, grants appellants opportunity to present evidence</h1> <h3>M/s Astoria Agro & Allied Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CEx., Nashik</h3> M/s Astoria Agro & Allied Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CEx., Nashik - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against order denying Cenvat credit on various services and goods.Details of the judgment:1. Construction service Cenvat credit:The appellant availed Cenvat credit on construction service which was later reversed by them along with interest. The Commissioner did not thoroughly examine the project report submitted by the appellant for sugar plant modernization. The Tribunal held that a detailed review of the project report is necessary to determine the admissibility of the Cenvat credit. The issue was remanded to the first appellate authority for reconsideration.2. Bullock carts as input service:The appellant claimed that providing bullock carts to transport sugarcane to their factory qualifies as an input service. They argued that bullock carts were essential in bringing raw materials to the factory. The Commissioner did not verify the appellant's claim that bullock carts were shown as capital goods in their accounts. The Tribunal decided to remand this issue to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.3. Cenvat credit on steel sheets and other goods:Regarding the Cenvat credit availed on steel sheets and other materials, the appellant contended that these goods were used for repair and maintenance, supported by a certificate from a chartered engineer. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant's claim is backed by sufficient evidence, it must be considered by the Commissioner. The issue was also remanded for further examination.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner for fresh consideration within three months. The appellants were to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and provide evidence supporting their claims. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 