9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Abatement of value - N/N. 1/2006/ST - If the assessee is not entitled to the CENVAT Credit whether he can claim the benefit of abatement of value under N/N. 1/2006/ST by virtue of the fact that they have not availed CENVAT Credit? - Held that:- The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there is no provision in the notification to allow retrospectively of the abatement of value and he cannot modify the provisions of this notification. There is nothing in the appeal in which the appellant has countered this argument and explained how they were eligible for benefit of abatement under N/N. 1/2006/ST retrospectively. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/31027/2017 - Final Order No. A/30639/2018 - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authority has confirmed the demands. Upon appeal by the assessee the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has vide Order-in-Appeal No.34/2010 (H-II) (ST) dated 27.04.2010 rejected their appeal. The appellant approached the Hon ble CESTAT (Bangalore Bench) who remanded the matter back for de novo proceedings. The de novo Order-in-Original No.54/2015 Adjn-ST (ADC) dated 31.12.2015 was passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) who rejected the appeal. The present appeal is against this Order-in-Appeal of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued on the following grounds in his appeal: (a) The Order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot himself registered. Therefore, the dealer not getting registered is a substantive defect and it is not a procedural requirement which cannot be cured by the dealer getting himself registered subsequent to the issuing of the invoices. He relied on the Orders of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, M/s. Chemical sales Vs CCE, Chandigarh and vice versa [2018 (2) TMI (131) (CESTAT- Chandigarh)], Gujarat Polycoat Chemical Pvt Ltd [2008 (221) ELT (452) (Tri-Ahmedabad)] and Mystroniks Ltd [2007 (220) ELT (216) (Tri- Mumbai)] and Atma tube Products Ltd [2005 (192) ELT (560) (Tri-Delhi)]. He argued that in view of the above orders of the Tribunal the issue is no longer res integra and no CENVAT is admissible on invoices which are i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no CENVAT Credit is admissible on invoices issued by the unregistered dealers. Respectfully, I agree with these decisions and follow the same. 5. Therefore I hold that the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by the unregistered dealers in view of the restrictions under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, the appellant has violated CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by availing credit on the basis of an ineligible documents and the same is recoverable from them. By taking credit of ineligible document the appellant have rendered themselves liable to penalty. I therefore find no reason to deviate from the decision of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal with regard to (a) CENVAT Credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
