Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 960 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDenial of CENVAT credit - validity of duty paying documents - fake invoices - some invoices in the name of other division of the company and some invoices do not have the name of the company or its location - Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that: - the appellants training division is housed along with several other divisions of the company in the same premises in New Delhi. Further, the training division has been transferred to M/s. GE India Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) w.e.f. February 2005 only. Consequently, many invoices based on which Cenvat Credit have been availed did not contain full details such as correct name of appellant. However, we find that the appellant is now in a position to satisfy the Revenue authorities about the genuineness of each and every invoice involved in the present proceedings. It is also submitted before us that such a reconciliation statement backed by a Certificate from Chartered Accountant has been produced before the Adjudicating authority. However, the same does not appear to have been considered. We find that Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 provides for such eventualities - The rule vests the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner with the power to admit documents subject to verification. Similar issue decided in the case EUPEC-Welspun Coatings India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008 (8) TMI 515 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and the reliance placed in the decision where it was held that all the details are available except name and address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission is that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in the name of the assessee, the importer has issued separate certificate/declaration. It has to be seen in as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen isolation as done by the Department. It is quite clear that the credit has to be allowed in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) in this case. Therefore appeal is allowed with consequential relief to appellants. Imposition of penalty u/s 77 of the Finance Act 1994 - Under the facts and circumstances of this case we find no justification for imposing such penalty and is hence vacated. The matter needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for undertaking verification of the reconciliation chart along with supporting documents which the appellant is presently in a position to submit. The appellant is directed to produce all necessary details and facilitate quick and smooth verification of the same, after which the original adjudicating authority will pass a denovo order in the matter - appeal allowed.
|