9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT redit - various input services - Held that: - the original authority has observed that the appellant has not produced the proof for having paid the value of services or the service tax to the service providers. The appellant has submitted that they would be able to furnish the documents. We therefore, are of the considered opinion that the appellants should be given a further chance to establish their case on this count - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority, who shall re-adjudicate this issue after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - E/172/2010 - Final Order No. 43235/2017 - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the service tax and availed credit of the same which was reflected in their ER-1 returns of September, 2007. A SCN was issued alleging that the appellants (Ambattur unit) has wrongly availed credit of service tax paid in respect of construction activity at Irungattukkottai. Another allegation raised in the SCN was that the appellants have wrongly availed input credit of ₹ 9,71,613/- in 02/2008, on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Hyundai Motors India Pvt. Ltd. That though the invoices are addressed to the appellants Ambattur unit, the materials were delivered in the factory premises of M/s. Hanil Tubes India Pvt. Ltd., Irungattukkottai, and thus appellant is not eligible for credit. The third issue was that the appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 was issued invoking the extended period alleging suppression of facts. That as the appellant had declared/disclosed all the details with regard to availment of credit on the construction services, the allegation of suppression is without basis. 2.2 With regard to the demand of ₹ 9,71,613/-, disallowing the input credit, the LD. Counsel submitted that the appellant is not contesting the duty liability. The contest on this issue is confined to the penalty imposed. He submitted that the appellant started manufacturing activity at Ambattur and later applied for surrender of Central Excise registration. At the time of said surrender it was pointed out that they have wrongly availed input credit to the tune of ₹ 9,71,613/- as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of September,2007. On scrutiny of the ER-1 returns, we find that the appellant has disclosed the credit availed in respect of the construction activity done at Irungattukkottai. It was also informed to the department that the appellant s unit at Ambattur had stopped manufacturing activity and they had also applied for cancellation of Central Excise registration certificate. On intimation from the Range Superintendent, the appellants have furnished the invoices regarding the said construction activity. In spite of that the department has not issued the SCN during the normal period. We find no element of evidence adduced by the department to hold that the appellant is guilty of wilful suppression of facts. Thus, the said demand in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
