9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the equipments in question, this procedural lapse cannot be considered a reason to deny Cenvat credit involved. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.193 of 2008 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76568/2019 - Dated:- 24-10-2019 - HON BLE SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T. Mondal, Authorized Representative for the Appellant (s) Shri Avra Majumdar, Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER P.K. CHOUDHARY : The appellant department has filed this Appeal against Order-in- Original No.ST/Shillong No.10/2008 dated 25.09.2008, whereby the adjudicating authority held that photocopies of invoices, audited Trial Balance, Advice of Transfer/T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004 against which credit could have been taken. Further Transfer Advice was bad only by photocopy of invoice and not the original invoices. He submits that but for the verification conducted by the department, this irregularity would not have come to the notice of the department and therefore penalty should be imposed. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent assessee submits that the assessee was having various Secondary Switching Areas. It was only natural that procurement was done centrally to get competitive bids also for arranging logistics efficiently. From a commercial point of view such an operational approach had to be followed and cannot be faulted as a method to take any unauthorized credit. The only procedural laps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted in defence and am convinced that their claim is substantiated with documentary evidence. I therefore, find that the allegation of Cenvat credit taken on improper documents during the period October 04 to March 05 is unfounded and the amount of ₹ 42,56,561.00 is to be deducted from the amount proposed to be recovered. 4.2 As regards alleged amount of Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,21,20,817.00 wrongfully taken during the period from October 05 to March 06 on improper documents BSNL has contended that in the financial year 2005-06 actual credit taken was ₹ 94,12,966.00 only. They submitted that it might be seen from page no.12 of their Trial Balance for 2005-06 that total Cenvat credit taken was ₹ 1,82,33,946. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit taken wrongfully on customs duties is concerned, they submitted the actual credit taken on customs duty instead of counter veiling duty was ₹ 64,46,974.00 for the capital goods imported form Nortel Network. They admitted the fact that they had wrongfully availed Cenvat credit of ₹ 64,46,974.00 on customs duty and not ₹ 2,24,66,759.00 as alleged in the notice. I have perused the records submitted in defence and find that Cenvat credit has been taken on Customs duty which is not admissible in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. BSNL too has not disputed it, rather they admitted the fact of wrongful Cenvat credit taken on customs duty. The only matter of dispute in this respect is in regard to amount involved, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
