9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been availed by the respondents in the course of their business of manufacturing. In these circumstances, as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), I hold that appellant are entitled to take Cenvat credit. - Decided against the revenue. Although they have taken the Cenvat credit in the absence of invoices which were not found during the course of audit, but thereafter no efforts have been made by the appellant to produce original invoice. In these circumstances, I do not find infirmity in the order of imposition of penalty on the respondent. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, same is upheld - Decided against the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, they are not entitled to take inputs service credit. As per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued and same was adjudicated. 4. During the course of audit, it was also found that respondents has availed the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,01,198/- without invoice. Therefore, by issuance of show cause notice, Cenvat credit availed by the respondents was sought to be denied along with interest and imposition of penalty was also proposed. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the amount of ₹ 2,01,198/- which was paid by the appellant before issuance of show cause notice was appropriated but other demands were confirmed against the respondents along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Durferrit Asea Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur [2010 (258) ELT 414 (Tri-Bang)] which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As in that case, there was only one office of the appellant and this Tribunal held that there is no requirement of registration as input service distributor. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that all the above services have been availed by the respondent being a manufacturer in the course of their business of manufacturing of excisable goods. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement [2010 (26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has reversed the credit availed in the absence of inputs which were not available at the time of audit, amounting to ₹ 2,01,198/- , the penalties are not imposable as they have paid the duty along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, penalty may be waived. 8. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 9. In this case, there are two issues (a) Whether the respondents are required to be registered as Input Service Distributor as per Rule 2 (m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not.? (b) Whether the inputs service availed by the respondent in question have nexus in the business of manufacturing of final product of respondent or not? Issue No. 1. As per Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
