2016 (7) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent Date of decision:15/03/2016 ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] This appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) which allowed credit on various input services. 2. The respondents were issued a show-cause notice dated 24/01/2012 invoking the extended period proposing to disallow credit on service tax paid on input services for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals) allowed the appeal in favour of respondents herein. Hence this appeal filed by Revenue. 4. On behalf of Revenue, the learned AR Shri Chatru Singh submitted that though four grounds are raised in the appeal, he confines his argument with regard to one ground only i.e. whether the Commissioner(Appeals) has power to accept and consider additional evidence (the originals of bills / invoice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was discrepancy in the photocopies or originals produced. So also there is no dispute that service tax was paid and accounted for as per the invoices. Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 referred by appellant/Revenue deals with production of additional evidence before Commissioner(Appeals). Sub-clause (4) of the said rule states that nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of Com....