Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
M/S. Titan Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 9 March, 2018 cites

M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 November, 2010

7. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit on the various input services like Mandap Keeper Service, Real Estate Agent Service, Transport of Goods by Air Service, Programme Producer Service, Event Management Service etc. The period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 when the definition of input services had a wide ambit as it included the words activities relating to business. The Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune  20009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom.) has analysed the implication of the term within the definition of input services and has held that almost all activities relating to the business of the assessee would fall within the ambit of input service. We therefore hold that the denial of credit alleging that these services do not qualify for input service is unjustified.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Dashion Ltd....Opponent(S) on 1 May, 2013

8. The second reason for disallowing credit is that the appellant though has a centralized registration but does not have centralized billing system. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has asserted that the appellant had a centralized billing system and was availing the credit on services utilized in other service centres at Hosur. During the relevant period, there was no provision for ISD registration. The appellant had obtained centralized registration. This was within the knowledge of the department. The credit was availed at Hosur on the input services which have been availed at the various service centres since the appellant has obtained centralized registration for credit. We are of the considered opinion that the denial of credit on this ground cannot sustain. Further, the department has accepted the decision laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd.  2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.), wherein it was held that even though services are availed in different units of the appellant, credit is admissible. Taking note of these facts, we hold that the demand cannot sustain.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1