Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)

M/S.Itc Limited vs The Customs Excise And Service Tax on 30 March, 2021

i.Sulzer Friction Systems (I) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.Chennai -I, 2015 (325) ELT 325 (MAD) and ii.Superintendent of Police Vs. Commissioner of Customs C.Ex & Service Tax, 2017 (50) STR 7 (MP) and iii.Vega Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd Vs. Registrar, CESTAT, 2018 (14) GSTL 7 (DEL) and iv.Cyquator Media Services P Ltd Vs. UOI, 2018 (10) GSTL 297 (ALL) and v.Valentine Jewellers (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI, 2016 (338) ELT 109 (RAJ) and vi.Rama Mohana Rao & Co, Guntur Vs. UOI, passed by the Hon'ble A.P.High Court in W.P.No.44708 of 2017.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Gurgaon I vs Ms Bravura Solution India Pvt Llp on 3 May, 2024

In the present case, as we find that the adjudicating authority namely Commissioner himself has held that in regard to the issue no. (a) of Rs. 18.35 crores the Commissioner has dropped the demand for recovering of Cenvat credit on the similar set of facts where the Commissioner has held under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the requirement is only to "the name and address of the person receiving the taxable service" and there is no requirement that the name and registered address of the person receiving the taxable service are appeared on the invoice for taking input service credit and this has been repeatedly laid down by the various CESTAT Tribunals"
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1