9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A is acting or paying tax on behalf of the appellant. There is also no documentary evidence or contract to the effect that CHA was working as an agent of the appellant. A cenvat credit case can be taken only with respect to the services availed by the service recipient and the document indicating duty payment is in appellant’s name. So far as invocation of extended period is concerned, it is seen from the case records that ST-3 returns filed by the appellant has described CHA as the input service provider and the type of activities done by CHA are weighment, ground rent, port w/fage, handling charges, container lifting, Kandla Dock Labour Board charges etc. These ST 3 returns do not specify at all that Kandla Dock Labour Board charges an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit has been correctly availed by the appellant as the CHA has only acted as an agent of the appellant. Shri Doiphode (Advocate) relied upon the following case laws:- (i) CCE, Tirupati vs. Indian Cements Limited - [2012 (279) ELT 423 (Tri. Bang.)] (ii) Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Limited vs. CCE Ahmd. [2009 (16) STR 94 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 3. Departmental representative Shri J. Nagori (A.R.) on the other hand argued that CHA M/s. Arvind V. Joshi has not rendered any service to the appellant for which the debit notes are issued. He argued that the original duty paying voucher is in the name of CHA and the procedure adopted by the appellant only amounts to transferring the service tax paid by the CHA to the appellant without CHA provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny service tax paid by him in respect of the work executed by the CHA for the appellant. (vii) That type of debit note available with the appellant is not a credit taking document prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (viii) That appellants took service tax credit my mentioning in ST-3 returns that services are provided by Kandla Dock Labour Board and Kandla Port Trust whereas Kandla Dock Labour Board / Kandla Port Trust has only rendered service to the CHA who paid the tax. It was, therefore, a case of mis-statement and extended period is applicable. (ix) The following case laws were relied upon to support the case of the Revenue:- (a) M/s. Akay Cones VT. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi - (2003 (154) ELT 22 (Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence that the CHA was acting as an agent of the appellant. The provisions regarding taking of cenvat credit under Rule 5(3) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are very clear and has to be interpreted as per the words contained therein as laid down in the Revenue s relied upon cases of Akay Cones VT.Pvt. Limited vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [2003 (154) ELT 22 (Delhi)], Doypack Systems (Pvt.) Limited vs. UOI [1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC)] and Arvind Mills Limited (Ankur Textiles ) vs. CCE C, Ahmedabad [1999 (111) ELT 244 (Tribunal)]. 6. So far as invocation of extended period is concerned, it is seen from the case records that ST-3 returns filed by the appellant has described CHA as the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
