9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction Service or 'Commissioning and Installation service'. 2. In the show cause notice dated 23 April 2012, it is alleged that pursuant to audit it was found that the appellant availed credit of Rs. 28,15,915/- on MS bars and Saria on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturers. Such MS bars were supplied by the manufacturers to the address of appellant at Transport Nagar, Jaipur, which is not declared as a storage place by the appellant assessee. The premises were neither a working site nor office of the service provider. It is further alleged that from perusal of the records, it was noticed that receipt of inputs were also not entered in stock register. It is further alleged that it appears that the appellant have taken cenvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of the inputs were not entered in the stock register of the appellant. 9. I also find that not having the address of their 'registered place' on the cenvatable documents coupled with the fact that necessary entries were not found in their stock register, the appellant has failed to prove even receipt of the goods. The appellant has also not come out with any argument, on the basis of any evidences or documents to contradict the findings of adjudicating authority. The Adjudicating Authority has also discussed the issue and given reasoned findings in detail. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the findings and see no reasons whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order." 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee is before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isconceived, being on the basis of alleged violation of Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is held that the provisions of Rule 8 of CCR are not applicable in case of an output service provider. Further, it is an admitted fact that the appellant have received the inputs and have used them in rendering the output service, as is evident from the copy of the invoices produced before this Tribunal with reference to rendering of output service. The appellants have paid service tax without availing any abatement. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause notices are misconceived and not maintainable. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. (Dic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
