9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices instead of being in the name of appellants, were in the name of Shri D.C. Shah and Others - appellant claims that the name D.C. Shah and Others is used synonymously with that of the individual co-owners of the block - reliance was placed in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], by the appellant. Held that: - I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Just because D.C. Shah & Co. signifies the 23 appellants, they cannot be allowed to avail the CENVAT credit individually on the basis of invoice which is in the name of D.C. Shah & Co. When all the appellants can get registered individually and separately and maintain all the records accordingly, what ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of common impugned order dated 11.5.2010 decided by the Commissioner (A) disposing of 23 appeals. The appellants have filed 18 appeals, and in respect of other five appeals, the assesse did not file the appeals as the amount was very less. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellants and confirmed the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue in all the 18 appeals is common, therefore all the 18 appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The details of the 18 appeals are given below: Sl. No. Name of the appellant OIO & date Period Amount confirmed 1 Sh. Sandeep Kantilal Shah (HUF) 127/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.7,091/- Rs.5,518/- 2 Sh. Uday B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 155/2009 dt.14.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.11,090/- Rs.23,636/- 15 Smt. Shruti Subodh Shah 128/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 16 Smt. Neeta Shantilal Shah 116/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 17 Sh. Subodh Shantilal Shah 127/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 18 Sh. Sandeep Kantilal Shah 115/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.7,564/- Rs.5,885/- 2. Briefly the facts of the cases are that the appellants are registered with the Department under the category of renting of immovable property service for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (A), who vide the impugned order decided all the 23 appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, 18 appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name D.C. Shah and Others is used synonymously with that of the individual co-owners of the block and that Dev Chand House is their family name which they have been using for decades. He further submitted that they have been availing CENVAT Credit in accordance with law except for one aspect with the invoices in support are in the name of D.C. Shah and Others, the family name representing 23 co-owners instead of individual names. He further submitted that the payment to all the service providers is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on their individual receipt of rent after claiming SSI exemption. He also submitted that to claim SSI exemption and to pay the service tax on the balance amount, the appellants are showing their receipt of rent separately in their individual names but only at the time of availing CENVAT credit they receive one wholesale bill and avail credit proportionate to their share. He further submitted that the argument of assesses that this arrangement is for administrative convenience cannot be accepted. He also submitted that the law is very clear that no CENVAT credit can be availed by the individual on the invoices which is not in his name. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, which is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the records accordingly, what made them not to follow the same fashion in case of availment of CENVAT credit is not forthcoming. Under any circumstances an individual cannot avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices which is not in his name. The appellants are replying on cases wherein CENVAT credit was allowed to individual factory on the basis of invoices in the name of head office is irrelevant to the present case. The appellants are not branch offices and the D.C. Shah & Co. is not the head office. For registration sake all individual appellants are separate entities but only for availing CENVAT credit they are joint entity. This type of change of principle for separate purposes is not justified. Under this I hold that all the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
