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 Overturns Cenvat Credit Denial for Razor Manufacturer, Cites Narrow Interpretation and Time-Barred Notice.</h1> <h3>M/s. Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV</h3> M/s. Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the denial of Cenvat Credit for services availed from a Manpower Services provider and the time bar for issuing the Show Cause Notice.Denial of Cenvat Credit:The Appellant, a manufacturer of razor and razor blades, availed services of Manpower Services for activities not directly related to manufacturing. The Department sought to deny Cenvat Credit of Rs. 79,10,922 based on the nature of services provided. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, which led to the appeal before the Tribunal.The Counsel for the Appellant argued that the services provided by the Manpower Services provider fell under the definition of Input Services as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The Counsel highlighted that various activities mentioned in the definition, such as sales promotion and market research, are applicable to all services provided by the manpower service provider. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority's narrow interpretation of the definition to be erroneous and allowed the appeal on merits.Time Bar for Show Cause Notice:The Show Cause Notice was issued on 24/12/2010 for the period December 2005 to February 2008, invoking the extended period provisions. The Counsel for the Appellant argued that there was no suppression on their part as they regularly filed Monthly Returns and were subject to audits during the period in question. The Department did not take any action on the audit objection raised in 2006 until the Show Cause Notice was issued. The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred, as the Department should not have waited more than four years to issue it after the audit objection. Therefore, the Appeal was allowed on the grounds of both merit and time bar, making the Appellant eligible for any consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 