Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 1429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Portland Pozzolana Cement and registered with the Central Excise Department, paying duty on clearance of cement, in cash and by utilization of CENVAT Credit Account. The appellant-company has a Head Office, a Central Marketing Office and an East Zonal Marketing Office in India, for which registration as Input Service Distributor (ISD) was obtained under Rule 2(m) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The Head Office and Central Marketing Office were common to all units of the appellant-company located in India, whereas the East Zonal Marketing Office was directly related to a few units located in the Eastern Zone of India. Being registered as ISDs, all suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tain the required information as prescribed under Rule 4(A)(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 6.1. Against those orders, the appellant is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has been settled in favour of the appellant in their own case vide Final Order No. 75470 of 2025 dated 10.02.2025. Therefore, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the impugned orders, but agreed that the issue has been settled, in favour of the appellant. 9. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 10. We find that the said issue had come up before this Tribunal i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the adjudicator. He has not taken the Annexure to Invoice No. 002, dated 31.3.2012 and there do not appear to be any impropriety in annexing the details, if it was not possible to incorporate the details in a single page. Either the invoice can run into many pages or details may be provided in a separate page and annexed to the invoice. Further, I observe that no specific Performa of the invoice have been notified or prescribed under Rule 4A(2) of S.T.R. but the requirement of the said Rule is that the invoice should contain the details as mentioned therein. Further, I observe that in view of the rulings of Superior Courts, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. It was also observed that there is no objection at the end of ISD....