9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office was not registered as input service distributer and it has rightly been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the proper procedure for availment of the credit of such invoices was for the Delhi office to have got themselves registered as input service distributer - credit rightly denied. Penalty in respect of seized goods - Held that: - The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld imposition of penalty only after 27.02.2010 when the law was amended to impose penalty for wrong availment of credit of Service Tax by suppression of facts with an intent to evade Central Excise duty. Hence there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - there was clearly suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were compensated and the redemption fine and penalty were imposed in respect of seized goods also. The party went in appeal. 1.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order directed the appellants to approach jurisdictional AC/DC with all the input service invoices and other co-related documents to show the admissibility of credit as per his detailed direction in para 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Order-in-Appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the extended period and penalty in respect of the amount which would be equal to the amount of inadmissible cenvat credit quantified by the jurisdictional AC/DC for the period w.e.f. 27.02.2010. As per the direction of Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner carried out the verifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) and the verification report pursuant to his order, has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that out of the denial of credit of ₹ 5,24,239/-, they are not disputing the denial of ₹ 4,05,759/-. The denial of ₹ 30,060/- on the ground that original invoices are misplaced during the shifting of factory premises has not been favourably considered by the lower authorities and there was no allegation that credit on the same was taken by Unit-I as well as Unit-II. He also disputed the credit of ₹ 1,19,844/- claiming that the appellants were maintaining their Delhi office as a branch office in relation to their business and at the relevant time activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and mis-use of facility. 5.2 As for the credit of ₹ 1,19,844/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only disallowed the credit in respect of invoices issued in the name of Delhi office which pertain to services exclusively utilized by Unit-II. During the material period, the Delhi office was not registered as input service distributer and it has rightly been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the proper procedure for availment of the credit of such invoices was for the Delhi office to have got themselves registered as input service distributer. Hence, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in accordance with the rules as in force at the material time. 5.3 As for the penalty in respect of seized goods, the authorized signatory, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (321) ELT 200(All.), the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad held as under:- 32. We further find that under Rules, 2004, a burden is cast upon the manufacturer to ensure that Cenvat credit is correctly claimed by them and proper records are maintained in that regard. 33. The assessee, in response to the show cause notice had stated that there is no provision in Central Excise Law to disclose the details of the credit or to submit the duty paying documents, which in our opinion is false and an attempt to deliberately contravene the provisions of the Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder with an intent to evade the duty. 34. In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly suggest willful suppression of material facts by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
