Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Vodafone Essar South Ltd vs Cce & St Meerut I on 27 February, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III





Service Tax   Appeal No. 50089  of 2014-ST(SM)

	Service Tax     Stay Application  No. 50103  of 2014-Ex(SM)



[Arising out of Order-In-Original No.  57/CE/Meerut I/ 2013    dt. 6.9.2013 passed by Commissioner of  Customs & Central Excise , Meerut]

	

For approval and signature:	

Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)



1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?


No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 


No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?


Yes


M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.                                               Appellants 



Vs.



CCE & ST  Meerut I				      	                     Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M S Negi , AR for the Respondents Date of Hearing : 27.02.2014 ORDER NO .FO/ A/ 50878 /2014-SM(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on various services stand disallowed to the appellant on the ground that cenvatable invoices do not contain either the name of service provider or his address or his registration number. Wherever during the course of adjudication, the appellant could produce the original invoices, benefit stand extended to them, wherever they could not, demands stand confirmed.

2. Learned Advocate submits that they have now all the invoices with them and prays for remanding the matter with directions to the original adjudicating authority to verify such invoices.

3. Learned DR has no objection.

4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the appellants claim of having all the relevant invoices with them. It is made clear that all other issues, if any, including the question of time bar are kept open for adjudicating authority to redecide the same.

5. Stay petition as also appeals get disposed of in the above manner.


                               (Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

  	



                                                                             ( Archana Wadhwa )        					                                       Member(Judicial)

       

ss   			







??



??



??



??









2