Appellate Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision in Cenvat Credit DisputeRefund claim - denial on the ground that the invoices etc. do not bear the clear description of the service and the credit has been availed by the assesee before making payment of the invoices and the house keeping of cafeteria service has no nexus with output service etc. - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in detailed with each and every of the objection of the Revenue and held in favor of assessee - Revenue in their memo of appeal has not raised any ground worth rebutting... ... ... Issues: Dispute related to respondent's claim under Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) for a specific period.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD, the issue at hand was the rejection of a refund claim by the original adjudicating authority concerning the respondent's claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) for the period October 2012 to December 2012. The rejection was based on technical grounds, including the lack of clear description of services on the invoices, availing credit before invoice payment, and the perceived lack of nexus between housekeeping of cafeteria services and output services.

The Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly addressed each objection raised by the Revenue and, relying on Tribunal decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee. The Revenue, in their appeal, failed to present any substantial grounds to challenge the Commissioner's findings. Consequently, as no deficiencies were identified in the Commissioner's order, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

The judgment, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), on December 1, 2017, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and denied the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the absence of any valid grounds for reversal. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the invoices etc. do not bear the clear description of the service and the credit has been availed by the assesee before making payment of the invoices and the house keeping of cafeteria service has no nexus with output service etc. - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in detailed with each and every of the objection of the Revenue and held in favor of assessee - Revenue in their memo of appeal has not raised any ground worth rebutting the above finding of Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Cc&ce&st, noida Versus st-ericsson india limited
Service Tax
2018 (2) TMI 575 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD - TMI
CESTAT, ALLAHABAD - AT
Dated:- 1-12-2017
53535 / 2015 - A/71815/ 2017-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Ms. Archana wadhwa, member (judicial) For the appellant: sh. Pawan kumar singh, supdt. (dr) For the respondent: sh. Nishant mishra, advocate for the respondent Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute relates to respondents claim filed in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) for the period October, 2012 to December, 2012. The refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the technical ground that the invoices etc. do not bear the clear description of the service and the credit has been availed by the assesee before making payment of the invoices and the house keeping of cafeteria service has no nexus with output service etc. 3. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in detailed with each and every of the objection of the Revenue and by relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. Revenue in their memo of appeal has not raised any ground worth rebutting the above finding of Commissioner (Appeals). Inasmuch as no infirmity stands found in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is rejected, being devoid on merits. (Pronounced on 01.12.2017)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders