9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service distributor, under Cenvat Credit in January, 2007 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/208/2008 - FO/A/76842/2018 - Dated:- 13-6-2018 - Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri A. Baheti, CA for the appellant Shri H.S. Abedim AC(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Bijay Kumar 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, i.e. order-in-Original No 69/70/Commr./BOL/07 dated 27th November 2007, issued on January 18 2008, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Carbon Black from their registered factory at Durgapur and for which they are the registered wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,37,449 325,06,885 3. The Durgapur plant of the Appellant showed these credits in their RG 23 register for respective months on the basis of ISD invoices issued by the Head Office and the manufacturing unit at Durgapur availed and utilised this cenvat credit. The Revenue, on scrutiny of the records of the Appellant entertained a view that the Cenvat Credit availed of aforesaid four invoices are not as per the rule 7A and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 read with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the appellant was visited with the two show Cause Notices dated 6th September 2006 and 19th April, 2007 on the ground that the said ISD invoices which lacked the following details. (a) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reply to the show cause notice before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Reliance was placed on the decisions of M/s Hybrid Electronic System Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex Mumbai-I 1996 (87) ELT 526(Tribunal) and Nestle India ltd 2013(287) ELT 492. In the present case Head Office of the appellant applied for the ISD registration on 15th July, 2005 as per the Rule 4(5) of Service Tax Rules. The registration was not denied by the Revenue, and therefore, non receipt of the same within the prescribed 7 days, it was presumed that the Department has granted the registration to the appellant from 22nd July, 2005. Under that circumstances, invoices issued by the ISD on 31/08/2005 and 30/4/2006, and 1/06/2007, were legal and valid. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
