9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s. Zee-Turner Ltd., who certified that this mistake is due to feeding error in the computer. This clearly shows that the invoices were issued to M/s. Shivraj Cable Network only and not for anyone else. On a scrutiny of the records such as invoices, account ledger, bank statement, etc. it is clearly found that for all these six invoices the payment was made by the appellant i.e., M/s. Shivraj Cable Network to the service-provider M/s. Zee-Turner Ltd. through banking channel. If any of the particulars required is not mentioned in the document and the Dy. Commissioner of the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by such documents have been received and accounted for in the books of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the bill of input service issued by M/s. Zee Turner Ltd., the name of the service-recipient was wrongly mentioned as Hemraj Cable Network instead of appellant s name i.e. Shivraj Cable Network. He submits that it is only a typographical/clerical error on the part of Zee Turner Ltd. However, the services were received by the appellant and payment against bills raised for such services were made by the appellant only. It is his submission that all the corroborative documents clearly establish that the bills of input services issued to the appellant only. He submits that as regard the error in the bills, the appellant written a letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Mumbai -IV 2007 (81) RLT 331 (Bom.); ii. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom.) 4. He also referred to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and submit that even if the duty paying documents does not contain all the particulars, the Dy. Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, it is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said documents having received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver, he may allow CENVAT credit. He submits that, only the name of the appellant, i.e., service-recipient was wrongly mentioned by an error by the service provider. However, on the basis of other corroborative document, when it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Shivraj Cable Network is correctly mentioned in all the documents such as invoices, and other documents. I have also considered the affidavit given by the partner of the appellant. From all these documents it becomes crystal clear that the name i.e., Hemraj Cable Network mentioned in the invoices is due to clerical error on the part of the service provider. All the documents also establish that the services were provided by the service-provider to the appellant only and payment for the services were made by the appellant to the service-provider. I have read the provisions of proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which is reproduced below: Provided that if the said document does not contain all the particulars but contains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
