9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, as the issue involved is availment of irregular CENVAT Credit by the appellant which were duly reflected in the statutory records hence penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not called for and the same is set aside. I reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as it existed during material time, from two thousand rupees to two hundred rupees. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : ST/288/2012-SM - ORDER No. A/10982/2014 - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Respondent : Shri K.J. Kinariwala (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. H.K. Thakur; Appeal No. ST/288/2012-SM, filed by M/s. Sky Net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 24.01.2009 to the adjudicating authority but not considered in the Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2009. On remand, the adjudicating authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 25.07.2011, confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties on the ground that the documents submitted by the appellant did not qualify for taking CENVAT Credit as the same were not in original form and did not bear signatures of the person who issued them, and that the appellant admitted that it did not receive original copies of invoices from the service providers. The appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) against the OIO dated 25.07.2011, who upheld the OIO vide his impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.02.2012. 3. The matter was listed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd. not bearing issuer signatures. Therefore, the lower authorities failed to examine the documents properly. 4. On the other hand, Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue argued that the appellant had admitted in his letter dated 15.07.2011 (Para 3.4 of the Order in Original No.02/2011-2012, dt. 25.07.2011) that the appellant did not receive original copies of invoices from the input service providers. Therefore, CENVAT Credit of ₹ 57,947/- has been correctly denied by the lower appellate authority along with interest and penalties vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue and perused the case records. I find that as per Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
