9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty amounts are waived till the disposal of the appeal - Application stands disposed of accordingly - E/1851/2009 - 980/2009-EX(PB) - Dated:- 5-10-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard. 2. The appellants challenge the order dated, 25/27-3-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Joint Commissioner, Jaipur, has been dismissed. By order dated 23rd November, 2007, the Joint Commissioner, Jaipur, had confirmed the demand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in support of their claim and the same, prima facie, discloses that the authority on consideration thereof has arrived at the finding about the service being provided prior to 10th September, 2004 and not necessarily after 10th September, 2004. The assessment of relevant material in that regard and findings based thereon by the assessing authority read thus : "(m) MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD. (S. Nos. 31 to 33 of the ANNEXURE) - In this case, I find that the assessee has produced certificates issued by Civil Engineering of the assessee and a certificate given by MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD. declaring that the services in respect of the invoices dated 29-9-04, 23-9-04 and 20-9-04 were 'completed' after 10-9-2004. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -9-2007. It was only on completion of the work that the service provider issued invoices on 20-4-2004. From these facts, it is evident that the services in question were provided prior to 10-9-2004. The assessee has not been able to prove that the services were rendered in this case after 10-9-2004. Therefore, I hold that Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 212058 is not admissible to the assessee." The above findings are in addition to the assessment and the findings based on other materials on record. 5. Perusal of the invoice, to which attention was drawn by the learned advocate for the appellants as well as the learned DR, discloses that, the same was issued on 28th September, 2004 and specifically relates to the work which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish the same. It is also pertinent to note that, the appellants, admittedly, have not produced the contract between the appellants and the service provider in relation to the matter in issue. This is also the document within the knowledge, power and possession of the appellants. Records nowhere disclose any justification for non-production of such relevant material. It was sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants that, the show cause notice neither discloses any reference to such agreement nor there was any demand from the Department for production of such agreement. Mere non-insistence or non-demand in that respect by the Department cannot endure to the benefit of the appellants when it is the case of the appellants that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
