9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplaining the discrepancies to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, we find that to this extent, the Adjudicating Authority has grossly violated the principle of natural justice. Cenvat credit - denial of amount of ₹ 80 lakhs - credit attributed to the trading activity and not related to the manufacturing activity - Held that:- 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. Period of limitation - credit taken during the period 2008 to 2011 and the show cause notice was issued on 13-03-2013 - appellant have been submitting monthly returns alongwith details of Cenvat credit availed by them from time to time - suppression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng out of Order-in-Original No. PUN-EXCUS-001-COM-017-13-14 dated 19-08-2013 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I, Commissionerate, wherein the Ld. Commissioner disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 1,97,62,992/-, confirmed the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis, Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed. He further submits that since the appellant was not granted the opportunity to explain the discrepancies whatsoever, there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. 3.1 As regard Cenvat credit of ₹ 80 Lakhs, attributed to the trading 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is related to 16 services which are specified under Rule 6(5). The credit was denied on the basis of a report submitted by Superintendent (Adjudication) that there are some discrepancies in the documents. However there is no finding of the Adjudicating Authority that 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 ₹ 80 Lakhs (approx), there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
