9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amounting to ₹ 2,04,498/-, for the period from October 2003 to September 2006 has been demanded with interest and penalty equal to service tax has also been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that credit has been denied only on the ground that invoices were in the name of Akshar Enterprises and not in the name of appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigated the matter no purpose would have been served as M/s. Akshar Enterprise is a dummy unit created on paper only and it is not actually in existence. He submits that only ground on which the cenvat credit has been disallowed and penalty has been imposed, is the fact that invoices are not in the name of appellant. He submits that as per Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the name of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s one of the most essential and obvious requirements and if name itself is not there, credit is not available in this case. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 9 are not at all applicable in this case and credit is straightway inadmissible. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. According to Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if the documents (invoice) does not contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are essential as per proviso to Rule 9 (2), Central Excise Rules. Under these circumstances, I find that appellant has been able to make out prima facie case in their favour for grant of unconditional stay. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalty is waived and stay against recovery of the same is granted during the pendency of appeal. (Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
