9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-filing of application under Rule 10(3) of CCR 2004 and the credit taken, therefore, has to be held to be validly accrued and taken by the appellants. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/30444/2018 - A/31202/2018 - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant. Shri M.V.S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX-RRC-APP-173/17-18 (APP-I) dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the appellants are engaged in providing taxable services of broadcasting service , supply of tangible goods service and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 94. He also imposed penalties of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 20,55,937/- under Section 77 and 78 of the Act, 94. 3. Aggrieved by such an order of the Adjudicating Authority, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority explaining in detail the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of ₹ 20,55,937/-, which was allowed by First Appellate Authority. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the First Appellate Authority has erred in extending the said credits. He reads the grounds of appeal and more specifically emphasizes the point that when the demerger took place in Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., had CENVAT credit balance of ₹ 5,17,452/- and only that amount would be transferred to the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the demerger of UEPL. The Memorandum of Understanding referred above, in my view, establishes the fact of existence of the CENVAT credit in dispute in the accounts of UEPL. The only question, in such facts, would be whether they had taken such credit on the basis of appropriate invoices and as per law. The fact that they had not taken earlier such credit is not disputed in the original proceedings. There are no issues raised on their entitlement to credit raised by the department as well. It is also noted that the invoices were since audited by departmental audit team. However, the fact remains that when UEPL filed ST-3 returns for the month of March, 2012 they had in the CENVAT credit account a balance of ₹ 5,17,452/- only w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed there is a context in which such delay has occurred. It is true that a verification at the appropriate time could not be satisfactorily be carried out by the original authority since there was no formal process of verification initiated on the application for transfer of such credit filed by appellant as required under Rule 10(3) of CCR, 2004. This was because they did not file such application. However, considering the overall facts and evidences, there is no legal basis to deny the entitlement to credit on this procedural failure. It is noted that the auditors of the department had caused verification of the invoices. It is further noted that the Memorandum of Understanding executed in accordance with the demerger order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
