9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,03,909/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.31,51,955/- under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of "Automotives Seating Parts" chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Tariff sub-heading 9401 9000 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant also registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacturing of these parts from its unit located at Gurgaon since February 2009. Although, in the past appellant had another manufacturing unit for the same product located in Bangalore which was in operation for the period January 1997 till April 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of limitation on the ground that they have not suppressed any fact to evade payment of service tax and that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapse. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner has not agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and confirmed the demand. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts, the law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the service tax under reverse charge (in respect of these invoices) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgill India Pvt. Limited vs CCE, Bangalore [2016 (45) STR 124 (Tri-Bang)] * India Glycols Ltd. vs CCE, Meerut-II [2008 (11) STR 355 (Tri-Del)] 6. Learned Counsel also submits that mentioning of the wrong address (viz. registered office address at Bangalore instead of Gurgaon unit) was an inadvertent error on the part of the service provider and the same cannot lead to denial of CENVAT credit at the service receiver's end. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Bhalla Techtran Industries Limited vs CCE, Noida [2016 (342) ELT 448 (Tri-Del)] * Krishna Maruti Limited vs CCE, Delhi-111 [2012 (277) ELT 357 (Tri-Del)] * CCE vs Chemplast Sanmar Limited [2007 (5) STR 18 (Tri-Chennai)| * Modern Petrofils vs CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 10. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have also perused the material on record. We find that the only issue in the present case is whether the CENVAT credit can be availed by the Gurgaon unit of the appellant when the invoices had been inadvertently addressed to the Bangalore office. We also find that the appellant is presently the only unit engaged in the manufacture of the said goods and it's another unit at Bangalore which was operative has closed down from April 2007. We also find that it is not in dispute that the service tax under reverse charge has been paid by the Gurgaon unit and GAR-7 challan also mention the address of the Gurgaon unit and payment has also been made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
