9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, based on audit, came to the conclusion that the appellants have taken certain credit, which was not admissible in accordance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The broad categories in respect of irregularities were noticed by the department, are as follows: a) Excess credit taken on capital goods b) Cenvat Credit taken without proper documents c) Cenvat Credit taken on the basis of documents not prescribed under Rule 9(1) of CCR d) Credit taken on certain ineligible services e) Credit taken on the goods, which are neither inputs nor capital goods. 3. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority has gone through all these allegations in detail and has given reasons for non-admissibility except to the extent he found such cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed under Rule 9(1) of CCR, the same cannot be denied on the basis of substantive claim as they have paid the service tax on such services. Therefore, when the amount has been paid on certain services by them, they would be entitled for claiming the credit thereof. As regards denial of certain credit on account of the fact that it is not input service in relation to their output service, they have submitted that as explained to the Adjudicating Authority, all these services were in relation to executing their business. For example, he has submitted that credit denied on Techno Feasibility Study, Consulting, etc., would clearly be admissible to them as without these things they could not have provided port services. He has also argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief and therefore, this issue is not being pursued further. (b) Disallowing credit on the basis of not having proper documents:- 9. As far as this issue is concerned, we find that the provisions under Rule 9(1) of CCR are quite clear and it is an admitted fact that none of these specified documents were available with the appellant for taking the credit. We also find that as far as Rule 9(2) is concerned, certain minimum details were required to be shown in the documents for its admissibility as valid document for taking credit and the concerned Deputy Commissioner is also required to be satisfied about its actual receipt/use by the person taking the credit. On the one hand, learned CA is claiming that these documents, which have not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as documents to be furnished by the appellant to come to the conclusion that whether these services were required for providing output services or otherwise and thereafter, allow the credit. 11. There is another aspect also where the appellants have paid certain service tax in relation to payment to Indian Port Association (IPA) where they have themselves paid the service tax and have claimed the credit thereof. Here also, the issue would be whether they are eligible to take the credit on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) or otherwise. Therefore, this aspect also needs to be re-examined to understand whether service tax paid by them on the reimbursement made to IPA was service tax paid by them on behalf of IPA/service provider or it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
