9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-002-APP-293-20-21 Dated: 01.07.2020 of the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida By the impugned Order in Original No. 03/AC/D-III/GBN/2018-19 dated 07.12.2018 of the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division III Gautam Budh Nagar holding as follows has been upheld: ORDER 1. I disallow the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,50,543/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand five hundred forty three only) and order for its recovered from them under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 73 of The Finance Act, 1994. 2. I order for recovery of interest at appropriate rates, as applicable, on the amount at SI.No.[1] above under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 75 of The Finance Act, 1994.; 3. I impose a penalty of Rs:4,50,543/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand five hundred forty three only) upon them under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of The Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 Appellant having Central Excise Registration No. AADC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been dismissed by the impugned order. 2.5 Aggrieved appellant ahs filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri B M Jyotishi Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, Authorized representative for the revenue. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 For denying the cenvat credit, impugned order observes as follows: 5.1 As regards inadmissible availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,51,670/- by the appellant, I observe that the department has alleged that appellant had taken the said credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Bhupinder Singh Kohli, New Delhi for Rent charges of Ilnd floor DLF Tower District Centre Jasola, New Delhi, which is not the registered place of business of the appellant. These invoices were not covered under valid documents as prescribed under Rule 9 of CCR, 2004, hence credit taken by the appellant was irregular. In this context, I find that the appellant contended that they had their sales and marketing office situated in JA221, DLF Tower, Distt Centre Jasola, Delhi to control and monitor the entire sales and marketing, thus forming a part and parcel of their manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten brief dated 27.11.2018, it was submitted that they have made a distinction and paid the required amount of Cenvat credit availed with reference to D-71 of Rs. 56,108.00 (Service Tax Rs 45852 + Intstt. Rs. 10256) on the basis of proportion of distribution of security services at D-73 and D-7 1 5.4 On perusal of the challan vide which an amount of Rs. 56108/- was deposited, it came to notice that the appellant had deposited the said amount of Service Tax for providing taxable services namely: Business Auxiliary Services (Accounting Code 00440225] instead of Security Service, which could not be termed as payment of Service Tax on Security Services. Furthermore, the claim of the party that service Tax of Rs.17,273.00 has already been paid by them is not acceptable as the said amount has been included in the total amount of Service Tax of Rs. 45,852.00 as worked out in the Sheet showing Service Tax liability of Security Service Charges but deposited under Business Auxiliary Services. Therefore, I am of the view that the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 98,873.00 is irregular and liable to be recovered from them. 5.5 Lastly, I do not find any worth on discussing the applicability of exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red Premises - Stellar Park. The ld. AR for Revenue urges that credit have been taken for the service under Renting of Immovable Property for rent paid for the Stellar Park Premises, being unregistered with the department. The premises are not covered in the listed premises in their Centralised R.C. Thus, this premises cannot be said to be used for providing output service. Ld. Counsel for respondent assessee states that the Stellar Park Premises at Noida were taken on rent only in April, 2012. Thereafter they had applied for inclusion of Stellar Park address in their centralised R.C. on 24-4-2013, and the same was approved and granted on 19-7-2013. Further it has been certified by the C.A. that invoices for output service rendered from Stellar Park, was raised from the Registered Office at Noida. That as per Rule 3 of CCR, 2004, there was no condition precedent, that input service have to be received at Registered Premises, only of the output service provider. Further reliance is placed on the ruling of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) and of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
