9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Authority, of the books of accounts of the appellant for the period in April, 2013, July, 2014 and also July, 2016, it is evident that the affairs of the appellant regarding taking of cenvat credit were also in the knowledge of the Department. As such, invocation of extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. The ground with regard to limitation is allowable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.52601 of 2018 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.51589/2021 - Dated:- 23-6-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tamnna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The facts in brief are that the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on insurance of motor vehicles and ₹ 1,568/- towards repair and maintenance of the vehicle totalling ₹ 48,835/- has been wrongly disallowed and [further ₹ 31,000/- is attributable to mathematical error and thus tit to be deleted]. It is also evident as per Annexure enclosed with the show cause notice and at paras 7.11 and 7.13 of the written submissions. In spite of cogent explanation, disallowance has been made without proper reasoning by non-speaking order. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the cenvat credit of more amount than the actual cenvat credit. The appellant explained in detail the nature of input service, but without finding explanation untrue, disallowance has been made by a non-speaking order. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thmetical mistake as on the disallowed heads, total of cenvat credit is ₹ 48,835/-, whereas the disallowance of part cenvat credit has been made for ₹ 79,835/- (₹ 31,000/- is excess due to arithmetical error). 5. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observing that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded sufficient grounds for disallowance held that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant reiterates the submissions before the court below that motor vehicles /car in question were used for physical survey of the market for procurement of raw materials and also for sale of the finishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant were audited regularly as mentioned in the Audit Report of the Auditor General mentioned hereinabove by the ld. Counsel and also mentioned in para 3.1 of the grounds of appeal. In view of the fact, the audit had been regularly conducted by the Audit Authority, of the books of accounts of the appellant for the period in April, 2013, July, 2014 and also July, 2016, it is evident that the affairs of the appellant regarding taking of cenvat credit were also in the knowledge of the Department. As such, invocation of extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. Accordingly, the ground with regard to limitation is allowable. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
