9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input service for providing output service by them. The facts remained unnoticed if the same would have not been detected by the department. Therefore, the appellant suppressed the vital facts and contravened the provision of Rule 2(l) and 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with intent to evade payment of duty and hence they are also liable for penal action for their such act. In view of above, I agree with the order impugned of the adjudicating authority disallowing the cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 15,75,754/- taken during 2007-08 and ₹ 65,694/- during 2008-09 (upto 8/2010) invoking extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing penalty of ₹ 16,41,448/- upon the appellant under Rule 15 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brokerage to its sub-brokers at rates which were substantially higher than what the assessee received from the manufacturer. On this intelligence revealed during audit, Revenue presumed that goods on which the appellant received commission were not the same as shown in the Bills of some of the sub-brokers and that the assessee had also irregularly and fraudulently claimed cenvat credit, in excess of its entitlement for what were not turely input services in respect of its output services provided. 4. The Primary and the lower Appellate authorities concurrently found on analysis of the materials on record, that service tax credit taken by the assessee on input services received from its sub-brokers was not admissible since neither was ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2008-09 (upto 10/2008). But it was found that the appellant had paid brokerage to their sub-broker M/s Pawan Industries @ ₹ 200/- to ₹ 400/-, @ ₹ 1100 and @ ₹ 1300/-vide their Bill No.Com/STR/01 dated 1.5.2008 which is much higher than what they received from the manufacturer i.e. ₹ 50/-to ₹ 400- PMT. Further, on going through invoices, I find that in many a case, it has not been mentioned for which purpose and for which goods sold they have paid the commission, in absence of such particulars, it cannot be ascertained whether the said bills are raised for overvalued brokerage of sales of material for which the appellant have earned commission from the manufacturer. I further find from the invoice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant from sub-broker cannot be treated as input service and hence service tax credit taken on such input service is also not admissible. Held accordingly. 5.3 Further, the goods on which the appellant received commission is not the same as shown in the bill of Pawan Industries and the service thus rendered by the sub-broker is not an input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as they have not been used in providing output services provided by the appellant. Therefore, I agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority , who has disallowed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 15,29,858/- taken during the year 2007-08 and ₹ 63,870/- in 2008-09 (upto 10/2008) on such bills has rightly been disallowed by the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
