9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice indicates a wrong address but such is not the case. Denial of credit of ₹ 73,571/- on input services - contravention of the provisions of the Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that:- As far as the exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE is concerned, Para 2 (iii) clearly lays down the condition that no credit of CENVAT on inputs shall be availed. It places no such restriction on credit of “input services”, which is the point in dispute. Therefore, the demand raised seeking to deny credit on input services because they availed benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 is not sustainable and the demand needs to be set aside. The confirmation of the demand upheld by invoking Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of ₹ 19,684/- on account of trading activity although they had initially contested this. Thus, at this stage the dispute is regarding only three grounds on which credit is sought to be denied as follows. (a) Amount of ₹ 28,523/- is sought to be denied on the ground that invoices are issued to appellant s registered office in Delhi while the credit has been taken by the appellant in Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is well settled legal position that mere wrongly mentioning the address of the appellant should not disentitle them to CENVAT Credit. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal. (i) CCE Vapi Vs DNH Spinners [2009 (16) STR 418 (Tri-Ahm)] (ii) Deloitte Haskins Sales Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because there is nothing on record to show that the services rendered under these invoices were used by the appellant. Not only is the invoice in the name of the appellant s office in Delhi but the service appears to have been provided to the corporate office and there is no evidence whatsoever to show that this service was used by the appellant in their premises in Hyderabad. Insofar as the denial of ₹ 29,766/- provided by M/s Strategic International is concerned, it is his submission that the services in question do not pertain to the appellant at all and hence, credit cannot be allowed. Insofar as the denial of credit of ₹ 73,571/- is concerned, learned departmental representative states that the credit was not sought to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of providing online information and database access services. The assesee has taken Cenvat Credit of ₹ 28,523/- on the said invoices as input services credit. Since the said invoices were raised on the address of the assesee located at New Delhi and that there is no document evidencing that the said office holds ISD registration and issued required invoices as prescribed there under, it has to be presumed that the services have not been received and used by the assesee in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. Thus, Cenvat Credit on the said invoices is not eligible to the assesee under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (b) In respect of Invoice dt.03.07.2015 issued by M/s Strategic Intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered. This demand was confirmed in the Order-in-Original on this ground alone as below: 11(3) Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on inputs/ input services during the SSI exemption during the period i.e., 2014-15: On verification of the ER-1 returns filed by the assesee, they have started manufacturing activity from December, 2013 and they have availed SSI exemption for the year 2013-14 and also during the year 2014-15. As per the said records, it was observed that they came out of the SSI exemption in the month of October, 2014, but availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 73,571/- during the said period. I find that the assesee has availed SSI exemption from April, 2014 to September, 2014 under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
