9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surance and packing. Even though amount charged was equal to the amount agreed upon, entire amount collected in this manner has been treated as amount towards packing and differential duty has been demanded. Since appellant has paid on services of installation, erection service and Cenvat credit taken is a common pool and there is no finding that inputs have not been used to provide service, appellant has made out a case for waiver. We direct the petitioner to deposit ₹ 94.5 lakhs (Rupees ninety-four lakhs and fifty thousand only) within four weeks - partial stay granted. - E/25818/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2015 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Later the balance items would be supplied. It is his submission that during the course of investigation, several statements were recorded and in all the statements there is a common refrain that this practice was followed since a portion of equipments/parts had not been received or ready and to avoid penalty, the appellant used to show that the supplies of the entire quantity in the invoice have been made. He also submits that appellants have submitted a detailed reconciliation statement which shows that the supplies made under the invoice and the supplies made subsequently by showing nominal value or nil value when taken together would be equal to the invoice quantity. It is his submission that the matter may be remanded at this stage i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that appellants had shown a specific amount as payable towards freight and insurance by BSNL as per the agreement. However, in some invoices amount towards freight and insurance was shown as towards freight, insurance and packing. Even though amount charged was equal to the amount agreed upon, entire amount collected in this manner has been treated as amount towards packing and differential duty has been demanded. AR does not contradict the submissions. Hence prima facie appellant s submissions have merit. 4. As regards denial of Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,51,577/- on inputs, he submits that credit has been denied on the ground that inputs were used in providing service and not on manufacture. Since appellant has paid on services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
