2018 (12) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r The issue involved is admissibility of the Cenvat credit in respect of inward GTA service. The credit was disallowed by the lower authority on the following grounds: 1. The credit for the period 20/4/06 to 12/07/2006 is not eligible for the reason that Rule 2(p) was omitted. The explanation to Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was omitted by notification 08/2006-CE dated 19.04.2006. Acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cenvat Credit. As regard the second issue that the invoices of GTA are in the name of Nirma Marketing Enterprise. Since, it is division of a appellant company, there is no difference between the Nirma Marketing Enterprise and the Appellant Company. Therefore, the credit should be allowed. Regarding the third issue, he only argued on limitations. He referred to the order-in-original wherein it was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant and Nirma Marketing Enterprises are two different assessee with independent registration number. Therefore, on the invoices of Nirma Marketing Enterprises credit cannot be extended to the appellant. As regard the limitation, he submits that the aggregate figure of Cenvat Credit was shown in the ST-3 return, the detail of input services provided etc was not shown. Therefore, it was not kno....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the input service for the purpose of Cenvat Credit as per the definition of input service under 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the lower authorities have wrongly denied the Cenvat Credit on this ground. I hold that the demand of Cenvat Credit on this issue is set aside. As regard the issue that invoice of GTA is in the name of Nirma Marketing Enterprise, I find that both, Nirma Marketin....