9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 933 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit denied on the ground that credit availed on the basis of photocopy of the receipt issued by Indian Airlines in the name of M/s Aanex Services, New Delhi and that the receipt does not show all the details - Held that - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below warranting interference by this Court. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant for not producing the original invoices instead of photocopies which were produced. Referring to the judgment in Shivam Electrical Industries's case 2018 (2) TMI 816 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it to notice that the said pronouncement being based on its own facts does not advance the case of the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on the basis of photocopies of receipts. 2. Validity of documents for availing Cenvat Credit. 3. Invocation of extended period of limitation for raising demand. Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on the basis of photocopies of receipts: The appellant had availed Cenvat Credit based on photocopies of receipts issued by Indian Airlines. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit as the receipts did not contain essential details like address, description, classification, and registration number required under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for specified eligible documents for availing Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal noted that if proper invoices were issued, the issues could have been resolved easily. The appellant failed to provide original invoices, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the photocopies. The authorities concluded that the appellant's claim was rightly rejected due to insufficient documentation. Issue 2: Validity of documents for availing Cenvat Credit: The documents on which the Cenvat Credit was claimed were deemed invalid as they did not meet the requirements specified under Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The receipts lacked crucial details such as the recipient's address, service description, value, and registration number. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal affirmed that such incomplete documents were not admissible for claiming Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed document formats to ensure the legitimacy of credit claims, especially in the absence of proper invoices. Issue 3: Invocation of extended period of limitation for raising demand: The Tribunal also addressed the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation for raising the demand. It was argued whether the extended period was justifiable when there was no apparent motive for tax evasion and the show cause notice did not specifically mention its invocation. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant's failure to produce valid documents warranted the use of the extended period for raising the demand. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the lack of legal merit or substantial questions of law arising from the case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below. The appellant's failure to provide valid documents led to the disallowance of Cenvat Credit, as the photocopies of receipts did not meet the required criteria. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with document regulations for claiming Cenvat Credit and upheld the decision to reject the appellant's claim based on incomplete and questionable documentation.
|
