9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors & Cables Private Limited (the appellant herein) are different persons and thus the invoices issued in the name of M/s.Sitara Metals (P) Ltd., prior to the change in name, has to be taken as that issued in favour of M/s.Sitara Conductors & Cables Private Limited - all the five (5) disputed invoices have been issued within 05.03.2008 which is prior to change in name since the change in name had taken place on 15.05.2008 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/70288/13 - FO/A/75211/2017 - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per: Shri P.K.Choudhary. This is an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.04.2009, the appellant is only required to pay interest for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.01.2009 at the appropriate rate. Lastly, on the aspect of limitation, the Adjudicating authority at page 12 of the Order-in-Original has observed as under:- However, the other contention of the Noticee that the matter was within the knowledge of the department since the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise had asked for copies of the invoices and signed on them as a token of seeing them is void of merit since the only evidence placed on record by the Noticee in support of this is that the SCN encloses copies of invoices bearing signature of the Range Superintendent of Central Excise which is nothing but signature of attestation on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal is on strong grounds and I also hold that the credit was availed on improper documents. 8. In view of the above, I observe that there is merit in the appeal. 9. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the appellant assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Shri Saurabh Bagaria, ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant was earlier registered with the Central Excise as a dealer in the name of M/s.Sitara Metals Pvt.Ltd.. Subsequently the name of the company was changed to M/s.Sitara Conductors and Cables Pvt.Ltd. as seen from the fresh certification of incorporation consequent upon change of name dated 15.05.2008 filed vide appeal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in to impose any penalty on the Noticee. Ld.Advocate contended that in view of the adjudication order as aforesaid, the aspect of imposition of penalty is no more in dispute since the Revenue had not raised this issue in their grounds of appeal while preferring appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 6. Ld.AR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the arguments put forth by the ld.Advocate. He submitted that invoices in this case relate to the period prior to the date of taking registration by the appellant as a manufacturer on 19.08.2008. He further contended that all these invoices were in the name of the registered dealer, hence, credit is not admissible to the appellant. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all the five (5) disputed invoices have been issued within 05.03.2008 which is prior to change in name since the change in name had taken place on 15.05.2008. 9. Regarding merit of the demand, the appellant admitted their clerical mistake in taking credit of 100% of ₹ 18,000/- in the same year in their reply to Audit Objection and as demanded in the said objection, they agreed to pay interest of ₹ 289/- since the credit of ₹ 9,005/- would have been available to the appellant on 01.04.2010. From the closing balance in their RG 23C Part II of ₹ 4,63,175/- and 2,89,105/- at the end of January and February, 2009 respectively and there was no utilization of credit in the month of March, 2009, proves without doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
