9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taxable services nor they received central excise certificate. Subsequently sometimes in March, 2008, when the jurisdictional central excise authorities conducted with service provider, M/s. Karanveer Singh & Brothers regarding their activity and it was found that the services provided by them were taxable as cargo handling services, and packaging services M/s. Karanveer Singh & Brothers paid the service tax and issued invoices. The service tax paid was Rs.6,22,658/- and on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Karanveer Singh and Brothers, they took cenvat credit of this amount in March, 2008 itself. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the appellant in this case alleging that they have wrongly taken cenvat credit on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buted to the intentional contravention of the provisions of the Service Tax Rules with intent to evade payment of tax but this plea was not accepted. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Addl. Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner vide order-in-appeal dated 22.8.2012 against which this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Hemant Bajaj, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the department's contention that the invoices issued by the service tax provider after 14 days are not valid invoices for taking cenvat credit without any basis, that the invoices on the basis of which cenvat credit had been taken have to be treated as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand alongwith interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri B.B. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that the invoices issued by the appellant were not valid invoices for availing cenvat credit, that there was wilful suppression and intentional contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder and hence, on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the service provider, if the same are treated as supplementary invoices, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
