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 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Khayati Communications P Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iv on 10 March, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI  110 066



      Date of Hearing 10.03.2014



For Approval &Signature :



Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)



1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
 No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes


Application No.ST/STAY/60531/2013-ST[SM]

Appeal No. ST/59818/2013-ST[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.41/ST/APPL/DLH-IV/2013, dated 01.07.2013 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-IV]





M/s. Khayati Communications P Ltd.			Appellants



Vs.



C.C.E., Delhi-IV						Respondents

Appearance Shri Shafia Khan, Advocate - for the appellants Shri D Singh, DR - for the respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.50954/2014, dated 10.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :

After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.41,004/- (Rupees forty one thousand and four only) and penalty of Rs.13,100/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and one hundred only), I proceed to decide the appeal itself as the issue lies in a narrow compass.

2. The appellants were denied CENVAT credit on the ground that the invoices issued by the service provider are not genuine invoices. The contention of the appellants is that they have made the payment through cheques, received services and utilised the same in their activities. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that there are two sets of documents legally to be scrutinised by the authorities below and if that is done, the situation would become clear.

3. In view of the above in as much as the dispute relates to factual verification of documents, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for doing the needful.

4. Both the Stay Petition and Appeal get disposed of in the above manner.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-