9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit denied to the appellant on this count in the impugned order is not sustainable. Denial of credit to the tune of Rs.7,18,797/- - credit disallowed on the ground that no documents were submitted by the appellant for availment of this credit - HELD THAT:- It is observed that there is no dispute with regard to receipt and utilization of credit for the purpose of the taxable services rendered by them. It is found that the credit availed by the appellant pertains to the period 2006-07 and the Notice has been issued for disallowance of the credit in the year 2011, which is clearly beyond the normal period of limitation. The suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty has not been established in this case. Accordingly, the disallowance of credit beyond the normal period by invoking the extended period of limitation in this regard is not sustainable. Credit to the tune of Rs.4,45,016/- been denied on the basis that the documents issued by M/s. Exide are not in conformity with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The credit availed by the appellant pertains to the year 2009 (two Bills both dated 31.05.2009). However, the Notice has been issued beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Central Excise Service Tax, 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of scrutiny of records of the appellant by CERA, it was observed that the appellant had irregularly availed CENVAT Credit during the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing to disallow CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.1,71,39,015/- along with interest and penalty inter alia alleging that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit irregularly without the support of valid duty-paid documents and without submitting copies of relevant invoices. 2.1. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2013 wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.28,00,459/- and Rs.21,68,423/- and dropped the remaining demands raised in the Notice. The Ld. Commissioner has also demanded interest and imposed penalty equal to the demands confirmed vide the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the above demands, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Regarding the denial of CENVAT Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit availed on the basis of such documents which did not contain the mandatory details as mentioned in Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 would not be eligible as credit. 5.1. In this regard, the appellant submits that the bills/invoices issued by the said service providers contained all the mandatory particulars as required under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. They further submitted that in this case there is no dispute relating to receipt and utilization of service by the appellant. Accordingly, they submit that the credit availed by the appellant cannot be denied only on the basis of procedural infirmities, if any. Thus, they prayed for setting aside the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.21,68,423/- confirmed vide the impugned order. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. We observe that the ld. adjudicating authority has confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT Credit to the appellant amounting to Rs.28,00,459/- and Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conformity with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, we observe that the credit availed by the appellant pertains to the year 2009 (two Bills both dated 31.05.2009). However, the Notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the denial of credit by invoking the extended period of limitation in this regard is not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that the credit availed by the appellant amounting to Rs.4,45,016/- by the appellant on the strength of the bills issued by M/s. Exide cannot be denied. 9.4. Regarding the denial of credit of Rs.17,174/-, we observe that the said input service credit pertains to the period from May 2010 to September 2010 and also during March 2009, which has been disallowed by invoking the extended period of limitation by way of the impugned Show Cause Notice issued on 11.11.2011. As the Notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation, we hold that the denial of credit in this regard by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 9.5. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant is eligible for availment of the CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.28,00,459/-, which has been den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
