9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,03,95,824/- and imposed the penalty of equal to both the amounts. 2. The fact of the case is that the Cenvat credit for an approxible amount of Rs. 1.20 Crore was disallow on the ground that the documents on which credit was taken are not proper such as no supporting documents were submitted, name of service recipient/ service provider is not reflected in the documents. STC No. is not valid; credit cannot be co-related with the documents. On such grounds, the credit was disallowed on the basis of verification report given by the Superintendent (Adjudication) vide his letter dated 12-07-2013. Credit of Rs. 80 Lakhs was denied on the ground that the same is attributed to the trading activity and not related to the manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding activity, he submits that this demand is time barred for the reason that credit taken during the period 2008 to 2011 and the show cause notice was issued on 13-03-2013. He further submits that audit was conducted in 2012. Thereafter show cause notice was issued in March 2013. He submits that the appellant have been submitting monthly returns alongwith details of Cenvat credit availed by them from time to time. Therefore, there is no suppression on their part. The demand is hit by limitation. 3.2 As regard demand of Rs. 1,03,95,824/- of Service Tax, he submits that once the wrongly availed Cenvat credit was disallowed, there cannot be additional demand on an amount utilized out of the said disallowed Cenvat credit. This wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the input service was not received or payments there against were not made by the appellant. Moreover it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to the appellant for explaining the discrepancies to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, we find that to this extent, the Adjudicating Authority has grossly violated the principle of natural justice. 6.1 As regard denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 80 Lakhs (approx), there is no dispute that the said Cenvat credit is attributed to the trading activity. Therefore, the same is primafacie not admissible to the appellant. 6.2 As regard limitation, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of final product and availing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
