9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. The appeal is allowed. - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Nitin Majitha, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri S B P Sinha, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal lies against order [order-in-appeal no. PVNS/196/Appeals-II/ME/2019 dated 11th July 2019] of Commissioner of CGST Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai which has upheld the order of the original authority for recovery of ₹ 42,00,480/-, availed by M/s Sumit Bhoomi Ventures as credit of tax paid on receipt of services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on the ground that either registration number was missing in the tax paying documents or that the number itself was incorrect. 2. The original authority denied the credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Limited (supra) and held as under :- 5. Coming to the deficiency in the documents, I observe that while applying the provisions of the Statute, officers seem to ignore important aspects. In para 15 of the Order-in-Original, the original authority observed sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the bill/invoices shall contain the Registration No. of the person issuing, name and address of the person receiving taxable service, description and classification of the taxable service. As these details are not shown in the bill/invoice, hence Cenvat credit is liable to be disallowed. In the show cause notice issued, I find that same are not forthcoming o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation that above mentioned particulars, meaning thereby, name and address of the person receiving taxable service, description and classification of taxable service are not forthcoming on the invoice. The only basis this objection can be upheld is that photocopy submitted by the appellant cannot be relied upon. Unfortunately, the Assistant Commissioner does not even say that he has verified the original or photocopy. The Commissioners (Appeals) observes : I find that adjudicating authority has convincingly established vide para 15 of the impugned order that the appellants have taken the credit of Service Tax on the basis of bill which is not a prescribed document and does not contain details as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and on what basis defies imagination. In any case, I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel that before a decision in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra) by Hon ble Gujarat High Court was rendered, there was a view prevailing that credit is admissible in respect of service rendered by commission agent. In fact, there is a Circular issued by the Board where such a view has been taken. Under these circumstances, extended period could not have been invoked in this case. The discussion above would show that on merits as well as on limitation, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellants question and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
