9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bills [did not contain full particulars cannot be considered as a ground for denial of credit. Further, the show cause notice dated 22-03-2013 is issued for the period 2009 to 2011, by invoking extended period. The Commissioner(Appeals) is seen to have imposed penalty of 50% of the amount involved. In Moser Baer India Ltd vs CCE, Noida, [2015 (1) TMI 1093 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was observed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne for the Respondent [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] 1. The above appeal is filed by the department challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), which allowed the credit availed on input services. The case of the department is that on verification of Cenvat credit accounts of the respondent for the period March, 2009 to June, 2011, it was noticed that the respondent had take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o by the order impugned herein set aside the demand of Cenvat credit and reduced the penalty to 50%. Being aggrieved, the department has preferred this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant/department the Learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik vehemently defended the findings of the original authority. He submitted that the procedure prescribed under Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 2002, is mandatory an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the utilisation of input services. The only dispute is with regard to availing of credit on certain bills or invoices, which did not contain the necessary particulars as envisaged in Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules. When it is not disputed that the duty has been paid and input services has been availed by the respondents, the fact that the invoices or the bills [did not contain full particulars c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
