9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the said services were installed and availed at Head office which is situated away from the place of manufacture and credit is not available to them. Appellant is challenging only these denial of Cenvat Credit and the penalty imposed. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Cenvat credit on the courier services is wrongly denied as the said services are required for the transportation of the finished goods to the customer of the appellant. It is his submission that the definition of "Input Service" as given in Rule 2(k) (sic) [Rule 2(1)] of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers the issue in their favour. It is also his submission that the services for transporting the goods to the customers place is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture will not be available to them and the same is liable to be reversed. Perusal of the sample invoice in respect of Internet Service submitted by the party shows that the same is in respect of the party's corporate office situated in Mumbai, and hence the credit of Rs. 1705.00 is not available to them and therefore, held as inadmissible." 5. It is seen from the records that the appellant has used the Internet services in their factory at Satna. The specimen Invoice of the Internet service provider indicates the customer name as "Universal Cables Ltd., P.O. Birla Vikas, Satna (M.P.) c/o Industry House, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai." This clearly indicates that the Internet connection was provided at Satna but bill for payment purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation is not permissible. Respectfully following the order of the division bench, the appeal of the appellant on this count fails and the same is rejected. The impugned order to the extent it denies Cenvat credit on the courier services is correct and does not require any interference. 7. As regards the penalty imposed on the appellant it is seen that the issues involved in this case were a question of interpretation of the provisions. Since there could have been two possible interpretations, the appellant cannot be visited with a penalty, as there was no mala fide intention to avail ineligible Cenvat credit on these two services. Hence, the penalty imposed on the appellant is unwarranted and is set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
