Case Law Details
Shubhlakshmi Polysters Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT find that the adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant’s factory. In order to find out the eligibility of a particular service as ‘input service’ under such definition, the nature and the purpose of use of the service in the ultimate provision of the output service and use in factory is required to be examined inasmuch as the parameters of eligibility of such credit differs from case to case basis and standard practice cannot be adopted uniformly in judging such eligibility to the Cenvat benefit. On perusal of the case records, we find that the nature of use of the disputed services as explained by the appellant was not properly addressed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order passed by him. Hence, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a proper fact finding on issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit on the disputed services.
We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to pass a de novo order after considering all the documents to be submitted by the appellant before him. Needless to say that the appellant should be given sufficient opportunity to make their submission and documents, if any required, and also granting the personal hearing before de novo
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
M/s. Shubhalakshmi Polyesters Ltd. have filed present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. BHR-EXCUS-000-COM-084-16-17 dtd. 31.10.2016 under which the Commissioner has disallowed the cenvat credit availed by the Appellant on various input services.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
