9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t based on the original invoices only the CENVAT Credit was availed, which were maintained at various branches and the Head Office had only obtained the photocopies of the invoices for the sake of convenience. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The same has been acknowledged by the audit party of the Department and apparently, there is no action by the Revenue till 19.10.2016, which is the date of the Show Cause Notice, which is clearly beyond the perceivable period of limitation. The purchase took place in the year 2011. The Internal Audit enquired about it, issued questionnaire (in 2013) and got replies thereafter. If anything was wrong, then nothing prevented the Revenue from issuing soon thereafter, after entertaining a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. NCR Corporation India Ltd., Pondicherry. The Department also noticed that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of ₹ 22,06,448/- on the basis of photocopies of invoices. 2.2 Much thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2016 was issued proposing to demand Service Tax of ₹ 36,06,362/- along with interest and penalty. The appellant field a detailed reply thereafter, seriously disputing the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2017 confirmed the demand of reversal of credit to the tune of ₹ 13,99,914/- along with interest and penalty, but however, allowed credit availed to the tune of ₹ 22,06,448/- . The appellant having not met w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. 4. Per contra, Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, supported the findings in the impugned order. 5.1 The facts are not in dispute. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2016 reveals that even though the same refers to the appellant s reply dated 05.12.2013 wherein the details of the credit taken by the appellant were submitted, the only lacuna pointed out is the non-production of original documents. Undisputedly, the appellant did not import ATM machines and consequently, there was no Customs Duty liability on the appellant. A perusal of the reply also makes it very clear that based on the original invoices only the CENVAT Credit was availed, which were maintaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Audit Team noticed that the assessee had received cold storage fixed rent charges up to 31 March, 2005 in the amount of ₹ 1.46 crores from Hindustan Lever Limited ( HLL ) for storage of frozen products. The agreement between the assessee and HLL was for providing clearing and forwarding agent s service. The show cause notice referred to the period between 2001-02 and 2004-05 ending on 31 March, 2005. According to the Revenue, the assessee had an agreement with HLL dated 1 May, 2001 under which it was to render services as a clearing and forwarding agent and, in addition, provide a facility for the storage of goods belonging to HLL in a cold storage owned by the assessee. The compensation structure stipulated that the assessee wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. Decisions relied on by ld. D.R. do not support the case of the department as those decisions are in respect of clandestine removal of goods where one cannot ascertain the relevant dates defined under Section 11A of the Act. . . . 8. Now, the admitted facts would indicate that on 27 September, 2002, a communication was addressed to the assessee by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range VI, Ghaziabad in which it was stated :- . . . 9. The assessee submitted a reply to this letter on 8 November, 2002 stating that the amount which was realised towards use of the cold storag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
