9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged that capital goods which were cleared by the manufacturer under heading 87042319 covers motor vehicles and therefore are not eligible for availment of credit - discrepancies in documents - Held that:- The documents produced by the appellant did not tally with each other and in both the documents, the engine number is different and only the chassis number is matching. Further the amount of cenvat credit is also different in both the documents. In view of this discrepancy, the issue of availment of cenvat credit is remanded to the original authority to verify the said document - Matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/20836/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21383/2018 - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re are not eligible for availment of credit either as input or as capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Further the allegation is that the assessee has availed 100% credit on capital goods in the Financial Year 2008-2009 instead of availing 50% credit that year and the balance 50% in the subsequent financial year. The notice proposes to impose interest for early availment and utilization of credit which is computed as ₹ 30,056/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand and Fifty Six only). Further the assessee has availed credit on input service prior to the payment effected to the service provider on that count interest of ₹ 53,664/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only) is sought to be demanded for early avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and Four only) under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Act for capital goods which is being on the ground that the invoice does not contain the amount of service tax paid. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order is grossly opposed to law and the tenor of Section 78 wherein Section 78 is read with Section 73(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions: a. CCE ST V. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.) b. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited V. CCE ST 2017 (51) S.T.R. 418 (Tri.-Bang.) c. Board Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX., dated 16.02.2018 d. CCE ST V. M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd., - 2016-TIOL-3270-HC-ALL-CX e. CCE, Cus, ST V. Solvay Vishnu Barium Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (329) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Bang.) f. CCE V. Emerald Packaging 2005 (191) ELT 169 (Tri.-Chennai) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has been consistently committing default in payment of service tax for various quarters. He further submitted that in respect of the various notices issued to the appellant, the appellant di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that as far as availment of cenvat credit is concerned, the documents produced by the appellant did not tally with each other and in both the documents, the engine number is different and only the chassis number is matching. Further the amount of cenvat credit is also different in both the documents. In view of this discrepancy, the issue of availment of cenvat credit is remanded to the original authority to verify the said document and the appellant is directed to clarify the discrepancy which has occurred in these two documents. As far as imposition of penalty under Section 78 is concerned, I find that the appellant has paid the duty along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice and as per Section 73(3), once the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
