9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant triggering this adjudication wherein it is alleged that the Appellant has wrongly availed Cenvat credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 23,63,046/- during the period from March, 2010 to January, 2011 on the strength of in proper documents relating to Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services as the invoices issued by M/s Apex Encon Projects Ltd. do not bear the name of the Appellant. The aforesaid amount of Cenvat credit accordingly was proposed to be recovered along with the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The original adjudicating authority has accepted the said proposal and have disallowed the said availment with the order of recovery thereof along with the interest and the penalty of the equa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out that the period undertaken at the time of said audit is the same as the one in the impugned show cause notice and the objection raised was also the same as the one mentioned herein. The Appellant has duly replied to the letter dated 13.06.2011 vide which the aforesaid shortcoming was noticed by the department, vide their letter dated 22.11.2011, enclosing all the details of the Cenvat credit taken and the invoices in that respect for the period in dispute. But the department did not respond till the impugned show cause notice, since the matter was already in their notice w.e.f February, 2011, the show cause notice of 30.05.2013 is alleged to be beyond normal period of one year of issuing the show cause notice. It in addition is impres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as have been upheld in toto by Commissioner Appeals. Learned D.R accordingly has impressed upon for the order under challenge to suffer with no infirmity. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the rival contentions of both the Parties and perusing the entire record of impugned Appeal, it is observed and held as follows : The department herein has denied the Cenvat credit of service tax availed on the strength of the impugned invoices (7 in number) as were issued by the input service provider for want of compliance of Rule 9 of Cenvat credit Rules 2004. It is, therefore, foremost necessary to peruse the Rule, Rule 9(2) of CCR, 2004 being precisely relevant. It reads as follows : (2) No CENVAT credit under sub-r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the tendered document. Thus, it becomes clear that any document if doesn't bear the name of the service recipient the absence thereof is not as relevant as to deny the substantial benefit which otherwise is accruing to the assessee. 5. Reverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the invoices were issued by the service provider to the service recipient and the same were submitted to the competent/concerned authorities while availing the credit of the taxable amount as paid by the recipient. It is perused that all particulars as required under Rule 9 (2) as above are being mentioned in the said invoice. Contention of department is that the name of service recipient is not mentioned therein. I observe that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the bill number and the amount whereof is mentioned in the said letter and also for the reason that none of the letter is post dated to the invoice. Hence, the findings that these are not the integral part of the invoice are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned that these letters otherwise cannot be considered for want of rectified invoices to have not been put forth before him. But as already observed above from the copies of grounds of appeal as was filed by the Appellant before him that even rectified invoices were placed before him for this reason also, I am of the opinion that Order since has not properly appreciated the facts has rather wrongly appreciated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to January, 2011 that is for the same period as is mentioned in the present show cause notice. The objection raised at the time of the said show cause notice was also based on same 7 invoices issued by M/s Apex Encon Projects Ltd. as have been challenged vide the impugned show cause notice. The allegation as is levelled in the show cause notice is same as was levelled vide a letter dated 13.06.2011. The said letter was duly repled by the Appellant vide their letter dated 22.11.2011 with the details of 7 of the invoices and the specific mention not only of the Appellant but also Rampura Agucha Mines being the recipient for the services from M/s Apex Encon Projects Ltd. Accordingly, it stands clear that the entire issue was in the notice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
