9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of invoices issued by the Service Receiver - Appellant contended that this amount was not availed as cenvat credit but by mistake, there was an excess payment which was adjusted under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules and payment made for internet subscription - Held that:-there is no scope before the Tribunal to examine the veracity of the documents and therefore the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority in so far as the issue pertaining to the alleged excess payment of service tax. As all the above issues being purely interpretative in nature with no malafides, penalty is set aside. - Appeal disposed of - Appeal No.ST/41031/2015 - FINAL ORDER No.40863/2016 - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77,192/- in respect of aforesaid two services. Hence a show cause notice dt. 20.10.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of an amount of ₹ 3,77,731/- being wrong credit taken and utilized by them along with interest and also proposing imposition of penalty under Section 76 and also Rule 15 (3) of CCR 2004. 2.1 The original authority adjudicated the notice and vide OIO dt. 27.4.2011 and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,06,052/- under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act along with interest on the issue of availment of credit on improper documents and on the second issue, granted relief on availment of credit in respect of input services viz. house-keeping and office maintenance (pest-control service). The adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal Ruling in the case of Tool Tronics Vs CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2006 (205) ELT 946 (Tri.-Mumbai) which is applicable to the case on hand. The Credit is therefore held to be eligible. 5. With regard to the next issue i.e input service invoice did not contain the Service Tax Registration Number, the appellant had accepted the same and reversed the credit availed to the tune of ₹ 150/- only. This issue is, therefore, closed as not pressed. 6. As regards the cenvat credit availed on the basis of invoices issued by the Service Receiver i.e M/s. J.K. Add Film Myth Production, it is the contention of the appellant that this amount was not availed as cenvat credit but by mistake, there was an excess payment which was adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
