Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)

M/S. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 7 October, 2016

2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri. G. Prahlad submitted that in these four appeals, the authorities below have rejected refund claim stating that the input services do not have nexus with output services. Further, that in appeal ST/25637/2013 and appeal ST/27732/2013, the appellants were not issued the Show Cause Notice proposing reasons for rejection. He contended that the appellant has been deprived opportunity to put forward proper defence and it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the second ground on which refund has been rejected is that some of the input service distributors invoice do not show the name of the service provider. He submitted that appellant had availed credit on services received by the Head Office, who issued of ISD challans. That therefore the rejection of refund on this ground is without basis. He relied upon judgment laid in Gulf Oil Corporation Limited Vs. CCE & ST, Vapi [2016 (43) S.T.R. 220 (Tri-Ahm)] and Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Godfrey Philips India Limited [2009 (14) S.T.R. 375 (Tri-Ahmd)] to convass the argument that the authority having jurisdiction for the input services respondent is not contained the adjudicating upon ISD challans.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anand Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 6 July, 2005

11. ETP Operation & maintenance/ Effluent treatment charges The effluent generated in the process of delivering the output service is required to be treated and discharged as per the norms prescribed by the PCB and these services are essential to maintain the standards. Anar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Ahmedabad-2011 (24) S.T.R. 32 (Tri.  Ahmd.)
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1