9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatsoever he has simply confirmed the demand. Ideally he should have called for list of the documents on which the Cenvat credit has been taken and compared with the total credit taken. From the data submitted by the appellant it is apparent there is no mismatch, but only a technical difference. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to call for the invoices from the period October 2015 to March 2016 and compare the credit taken with invoices. If there is any mismatch in that, the demand can be confirmed, if there is no mismatch, then Cenvat credit should be allowed. CENVAT Credit - amount of Rs. 12,12,894/- taken in the month of June, 2017 on the strength of invoices allegedly issued in July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HB' and 'input - RCM'. The head 'input RCM' denotes Cenvat credit, which is taken under Reverse Charge Mechanism. They have taken Input-RCM (Cenvat credit of contractors bills) in the Cenvat credit register on accrual basis. However in the service tax return the Cenvat credit of 'input-RCM' is taken on cash basis i.e. after making payment under RCM. They further submitted that Cenvat credit taken in the month under head 'input-RCM' is reflected in the next months ST-3 return and this fact was explained to Service tax Audit Team at the time of Audit and all the returns and document have been provided to them in this regard". 5. Learned Chartered Accountant further submitted that Revenue has picked up data of only the period of October to Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit register and ST-3 return for the period October 2015 to March 2016. The adjudicating authority after verifying the documents and submissions made by the appellant have verified this aspect in the impugned order. I don't find any force in the submissions made by the appellant. I don't find any infirmity in the impugned order on this point and I don't find any reason to interfere with the findings of adjudicating authority". 7. It is seen that he has not examined any facts whatsoever he has simply confirmed the demand. Ideally he should have called for list of the documents on which the Cenvat credit has been taken and compared with the total credit taken. From the data submitted by the appellant it is apparent there is no mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments and submissions made by the appellant have verified this aspect in the impugned order. I don't find any force in the submissions made by the appellant. I don't find any infirmity in the impugned order on this point and I don't find any reason to interfere with the findings of adjudicating authority". 10. It is seen that the arguments raised by the appellant, including ground about the aforesaid Circular has been totally ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). Prima facie, the issue seems to be covered by the Circular cited by the appellant, however, for a closure scrutiny with the relevant invoices, the matter needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to examine the issue in the light of the circular afresh. 11. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
