9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is a manufacturer of Cement OPC and Cement PPC falling under Tariff Item No. 25232910 and 25232930 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively. It has been availing various inputs/input services on capital goods for manufacturing of final products but for the above referred period, basing on Audit report, show-cause notice dated 09.10.2019 was issued to the Appellant proposing denial of credit to the tune of Rs.2,21,02,315/- on various inputs alongwith proposal for its recovery with interest and penalty. Appellant contested the same but ultimately demand to the extent of Rs.16,72,024/- for the above three noted input services were denied to the Appellant while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified from the total invoice of Rs.1,27,866/- raised for the said purpose is no ground to reject the credit on manpower supply, for which the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, as could be noticed from the submission made by learned Authorised Representative Mr. P.K. Acharya, Appellant had never submitted any proof in reply to the show-cause notice nor led its argument before the Commissioner that services were used for construction/laying down of Railway lines or Railway tracks as it was justifying availment of credit towards construction of rainwater harvesting plant that was refused by him as the same had fallen under the exclusion clause of the definition of input service. He further arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of invoices and records maintained by the Appellant, the demand was raised on the Appellant who was filing ER-1 return regularly and was maintaining all statutory records against availment of CENVAT Credits including records of disputed input services availed by it. In support of his submissions, he placed his reliance on the judgment of ITI Ltd. Vs. CCE-[2001 (45) RLT 163 (T)], BHEL Vs. CCE-[1997 (18) RLT 573 (T)], DCM Engineering Vs. CCE-[2002 (147) ELT 820 (T)], Maintained by Supreme Court at [2003 (153) ELT A301 (SC)], Pranav Vikas (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE-[2002 (148) ELT 963 (T)], Asoka Spintex Vs. CCE- [2004 (171) ELT 59 (T)], IOC Vs. CCE-[2003 (55) RLT 732 (T)], Air Carrying Corporation Vs. CCE-2008 (229) ELT 80 (T) Approved by Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the reason that the Tribunal has consistently held in various orders that Audit report can't alone from the basis of invocation of extended period. It is worthwhile to reproduce a portion of judgment passed in the case of M/s. Thyssenkrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Pune-I vide Final Order No. A/87941/2018 dated 20.11.2018 concerning the purpose of Audit and its resultant effect in para 07 of the said judgment. It reads: "Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably ensure that no amount, which under the central excise law is chargeable as duty, escapes taxation and the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
