9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sole ground of invoices being in the name of head office, is not justified.Decided in favor of Assessee. Limitation - Show Cause Notice stands issued beyond the normal period of limitation – Held that:- There is no column or provision in ER-1 return to show as to whether the invoices are in the name of appellant or in the name of head office – Appellant not guilty of any suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade duty. Extended period not applicable. Decided in favor of Assessee. - E/1400/2011 - A/10320/WZB/AHD/2013 - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - M V Ravindran, J. For the Appellant : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Mallika Mahajan, AR PER : M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the said order. 5. Ld. Commissioner (A.R.) reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. After heading both the sides and perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in this case is only denial of cenvat credit to the appellant on the invoices only on the ground that the said invoices are in the name of their head office and head office has not registered themselves as input service distributor. 7. I find there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the services in the factory and also that service tax charged by the service provider has been discharged by the appellant to them. In my view, this infraction if there is any, is a rectifiable error by endorsement of the invoices in name of the factory. 8. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice, is not justified. 7. I also find the demand to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the Show Cause Notice stands issued beyond the normal period of limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) has himself observed that there is no column or provision in ER-1 return to show as to whether the invoices are in the name of appellant or in the name of head office. If that be so, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant can be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade duty. If law does not require them to disclose the above facts, failure to disclose the same, by itself, cannot be equated with any suppression or mis-statement." 9. In view of the foregoing reasons and the judicial pronouncements, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
