9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the said invoices were not produced before the audit team. Needless to say that the appellant s Range authorities were under a duty to verify the said invoices and to extend the benefit to the assessee, based upon the same. In any case, the observations of the appellate authority that the registration number does not stand mentioned in the said invoices, cannot be adopted by the Revenue as an excuse to deny the credit, especially in the absence of any allegation, much less with any allegation to the effect that service tax does not stand paid by the service provider and service does not stand received by the appellant. As such, I find no reasons to deny the credit to the appellant. There is no justification for the Revenue to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant invoices before the concerned Superintendent, who would verify the same. 2. In the above background, the appellants were summoned by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for production of all the invoices in April 2006. The appellants accordingly produced all the invoices before the Range Superintendent on 17th and 19th April 2006. 3. Subsequently the appellants were issued a show-cause notice dt. 22/03/2010 alleging that the credit was actually availed by the appellant in May 2005 without producing the valid documents and as such the same is recoverable from them. The said proposal was made on the basis that the appellant did not produce the relevant Central Excise invoices before the Audit and there was no refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the service provider has not paid the service tax or the service recipient has not received the said services, the denial of the credit on hyper technical ground of non-mention of registration number is not justified. He submits that the services involved are management consultancy service as also commission agency service which have been held by catena of judgments, to be CENVATable input services. He also assails the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitting that the audit took place in the year 2005, invoices were produced before the Superintendent in April 2006 whereas the show-cause notice stands issued on 22/03/2010 i.e. after almost a period of 4 years from the production of invoices. In the absence of any mala f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the absence of any allegation, much less with any allegation to the effect that service tax does not stand paid by the service provider and service does not stand received by the appellant. As such, I find no reasons to deny the credit to the appellant. 8. As regards limitation, in the light of the factual developments, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, there is no justification for the Revenue to take a period of 4 years to issue the show-cause notice that too without verification of the documents submitted by the appellant. The credit was being availed by the assessee by reflecting the same in the monthly returns which were being regularly filed by the appellant. In such a scenario, no mala fide intention, with any intent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
