9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kdrop of the case, in a nutshell, is that appellant is engaged in manufacturing of C.R. Coils/Sheets Color Coated/Galvanized Sheets. Basing on audit objection, show-cause notice dated 10.12.2015 was issued to appellant it proposing recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit during the period April, 2014 to March, 2015 along with interest and penalty as per Central Excise Act, 1944 read with CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the grounds that address of the appellant mentioned in the input invoices was not that of factory of manufacturing to qualify as valid duty paying documents and that payment of value of service and Service Tax was paid by the CHA sub-contractor and not by CHA itself. The matter was adjudicated upon and entire duty demand of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher authorities i.e. Director himself had endorsed the corrections with seal of the service provider company. He further brought the attention of this Bench to form 18 filed under Section 146 of Company Act, 1956 to justify change of address of the service provider to JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai from its earlier address Jindal Mansion, Mumbai - 400 026 to remove the doubt raised by the Commissioner (Appeals) that such certificate was issued form a different address and was, therefore, not a valid certificate. He placed his reliance on the decision reported in 2015 (38) STR 557 (Tri.-Delhi) in the case of CCEX & Service Tax, Raipur Vs. Dayalalmeghi and Company, 2016 (342) ELT 448 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of Bhalla Techtran Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd prayed to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent he holds those credits as inadmissible. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, superintendent supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with reference to his findings at para 32 and stated that the appellant had not submitted the necessary documents before the lower authorities to substantiate its claim, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides and perused the case record. It is observed that in para 35 of the Order-in-Appeal, learned Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
