9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as unjustified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with reference to such denial. Regarding the credit taken on invoices not in the name of appellant, the admitted facts are that the immediately on being pointed out by the Audit, the appellants reversed the credit on both the invoices and reported compliance. They have pleaded bonafide mistake and also on the fact that the sister unit did not avail any credit on the said invoices. - no justification for imposing equal penalty with reference to such reversals. Decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No.51285/2014-EX(SM) - Final Order No.52426/2016 - Dated:- 5-7-2016 - SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Rep. by Ms.Rinki Arora, Advocate for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the service tax was discharged by debit entry in the cenvat credit account. The period involved in the present case is prior to 1.3.2008 i.e. prior to amendment of Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. She relied on the various decided cases of the Tribunal and High Courts to submit that the service tax liability discharged by using cenvat account is correct and proper. Regarding the credit on invoices, not in the appellants name, ld. Counsel submitted that they have reversed the amounts in March, 2008 itself. No credit was taken by the sister unit. The credit taken by the appellant on these two invoices is a bonafide mistake and as such, imposing equal penalty on them is not justifiable. 3. Ld.AR submitted that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Cheran Spinners Ltd. - 2014 (33) STR 148 held that the service tax liability on GTA services can be discharged by cenvat debit. Similarly in respect of BAS, Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Nahari Fibres - Order No.STA.38 of 2010 decided on 24.08.2010 held that the service tax liability in respect of commission paid to foreign agents under BAS can be paid by using the cenvat debit. Considering the above settled position, I find no justification for denial of such credits on the ground that the service tax has been paid by using the debit account as unjustified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with reference to such denial. 6. Regarding the credit taken on invoices not in the name of appellant, the admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
