9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst Order-in-Original No. 48-52/Commissioner/Noida/2013-14 dated 29/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a manufacturer of home appliances such as Air Conditioner, Colour Television, Computers, Refrigerator etc. They were availing Cenvat Facility. The appellants enter into an agreement of 1st March, 2008 with M/s BVI HR Practice Private Limited for supply of Manpower . In the said agreement the appellant inserted a clause that BVI shall obtain various license/registration service etc. required under the Income Tax law applicable on the type of services rendered by them, such as Service Tax and that BVI shall ensure timely and correct payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s connived with the service provider that is M/s BVI HR Practice Private Limited for evasion of Service Tax and for availing inadmissible Cenvat credit and as a result extended period was invoked for issue of Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 09-05-2012 for the period from April, 2007 to March, 2009. 3. Appellants submitted before the Original Authority that the invoices issued by M/s BVI HR Practice Private Limited were containing all the particulars prescribed under Rule 4(A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and that appellants paid Service Tax to M/s BVI HR Practice Private Limited for services provided and the service for which Service Tax was paid by appellants to the Service Receiver was an input service for them and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vider. They have further contended that the extended period of limitation was not admissible to be invoked in the present Show Cause Notice though the allegation was made on the Show Cause Notice that is connivance of the appellant with the service provider but such an allegation has not been supported by any evidence. The Original Authority did not appreciate the submissions of the appellant and through Order-in-Original No. 48-52/Commissioner/Noida/2013-14 dated 29/01/2014, adjudicated the said Show Cause Notice and confirmed the demand and disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,32,76,600/- to the appellant. He imposed equal penalty on appellant. Further, he imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on appellant. He further imposed penalty of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 394 (Jharkhand). It was submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has held that it is unreasonable to expect buyer of such inputs to go and verify accounts of supplier or to find out from Central Excise Department whether actually duty had been paid on inputs. He has further argued the said case laws are squarely applicable in this case. The ld. D.R. has supported the Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the argument put forth by the appellant before the Original Authority has great force of law. We find that the Show Cause Notice did not bring forward any evidence to establish that there has been collusion between the appellant and the service provider for evasion of Service Tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
