9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Singapore. The person, who is named in the invoice can only avail the cenvat credit, as per the said rule. The subsequent argument on behalf of appellant that there have been the corrections in various invoices in the name of the appellant but there is no certification on record about those corrections to have been made by the service provider. Rule 9 (b) itself speaks about the supplementary invoices. The appellant could have invoked the said rule - In absence thereof the statutory mandate in rule 9 cannot be overlooked in view of the oral defences of the appellant. The fact that services have been received in India is also not coming out from all of the invoices - even the argument that the substantial benefit cannot be denied du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the category of Maintenance or Repair Services, Consulting Engineer Services, Cargo Handling Services, Errection, Commissioning and Installation Services, Renting of Immovable Properties Services and Supplies of Tangible Goods Services. During the course of audit of the appellants record, the Department observed that the appellant has wrongly availed cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 12,45,205/- on inadmissible documents during the period from April, 2009 to September, 2010. The same was proposed to be recovered alongwith interest and the penalty vide a show cause notice dated 07.02.2013 read with corrigendum dated 16.02.2015. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-original No.29 dated 11.12.2015. The appeal thereof has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and Others reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) Dalhousie Institute vs. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell reported in 2005 (180) ELT 18 (Cal.). Finally, submitting that substantive benefits should not be denied based on the procedural lapse that the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, ld. Authorised Representative has justified the order under challenge. Para 6.1 6.2 of the order under challenge are impressed upon to have no infirmity. The order is prayed to be upheld. The appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both the parties, I observe that the narrow compass of the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Excise Act, or of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the rules made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddress of the factory or warehouse or premises of first or second stage dealers or provider of taxable service, and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT credit; 8. The use of word shall in Rule 9 (1) makes the provision mandatory and it becomes clear that to avail cenvat credit mandatorily the documents as mentioned therein with such particulars as mentioned shall be furnished. In the present case no doubt the appellant has placed the invoice for availing the cenvat credit. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms duty, demurrage charges etc. The clause is miserably silent about burdening the appellant with the payment of the services of cargo handling and even of consultancy. The circular as relied upon by the appellant is also not opined to be applicable to the present case, because the circular deals with an incomplete invoice, whereas the invoice in the present case is either not in the name of the appellant or is changed (without any authentication) in the name of the appellant. 10. In view of this discussion, even the argument that the substantial benefit cannot be denied due to mere procedural lapse is not sustainable to extend any benefit to the appellant. 11. Finally, coming to the plea of show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
