Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 25 - CESTAT KOLKATARecovery of CENVAT credit - Duty paying documents - credit availed on the basis of bills/photocopy of bills which were issued to the address of the head office - Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - CENVAT credit on bank advices - auxiliary insurance services - Extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The only allegation leveled in the show cause notice was that bills/photo copies of bills produced were raised in the address of the head office at 5, Bentinck Street, Kolkata-700001 and the said office did not follow the procedure of getting registered as input service distributor as required under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for distribution of credit on the documents in the name of the head office. In the first place it is pointed out that even the show cause notice in opening para stated that M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd (Unit IV) was earlier known as Shri Ramrupai Balaji Steels Ltd. The Appellant in reply to the show cause notice has categorically stated that the present Appellant had taken over this unit only w.e.f. 23-07-2007. Upto that point there was only one head office and one manufacturing unit. So there is no justification to deny the Cenvat credit up to the said date. Even subsequent to 23-07-2007 there is neither any allegation in the show cause notice nor any finding in the Order-in-Original that the Cenvat credit on input services was utilized in more than one unit. CENVAT credit - bank advices - auxiliary insurance services - HELD THAT:- The Chartered Accountant in the certificates has certified that the said banking & financial services as well as auxiliary insurance services were received and used by the Appellant. He has also certified that the Cenvat credit on such services had been availed only once as shown in their records. Despite the fact that the above Chartered Accountant’s certificates are on record, the Commissioner has not rebutted or controvered the veracity of the same. Therefore, the case made out by the Department lacks sufficient reasons to deny the cenvat credit on input service in respect of banking & financial services and auxiliary insurance services. Extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- Though the show cause notice was issued under extended period of limitation where there was a proposal to impose penalty on the Appellant of ₹ 2,000/- only in terms of Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act - having not imposed penalty either under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act which was duly invoked in the show cause notice or under Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Commissioner has impliedly accepted that it was not a case of willful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - the demand of Cenvat credit beyond the period of one year is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|