TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per Dr. D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Original No.8/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2012 dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on various inputs for the period October 2010 to March, 2011 amounting to Rs. 58,06,152/-. On adjudication the ld. Commissioner ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., later changed to their factory address which was duly endorsed by the service provider. He categorically submits that the input services mentioned in the respective invoices had been duly received and utilized in their factory, hence satisfies the definition of input service prescribed at Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, therefore CENVAT Credit cannot be denied against those invoices.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dences. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. On going through the respective invoices I find that the consignee address was initially mentioned as the head office of the Appellant but later corrected by the consignor, by mentioning the factory address of the consignee, with due endorsement by affixing the rubber stamp of the consignor. Assuming that the rubber stamp was affixed after prov....