TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned requirement save and except the invoice not being in the name of the appellant (but in the name of the original importer - high sea seller). It is found that no specific documents have been mentioned considering the transaction of subsequent sale on high sea sale basis, in the Rules. Thus, the scheme of the Act read with the Rules has to be read harmoniously. If for something missing in the rules, the cenvat credit is available under the scheme of the Act, read with Rule 3 read with Rule 2(l) and (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, service tax credit cannot be denied for some gap left in the statute. The appellant has rightly taken cenvat credit under dispute - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 53625 of 2018-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51578/2021 - Dated:- 17-6-2021 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant have rightly taken credit of service tax on port charges etc. in the facts that they had purchased the goods from high sea seller and some of the invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material to the factory, as allowable under Rule 2(l) read with Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was further urged that the Revenue have earlier also conducted audit by internal Audit party, Central Excise Commissionerate on 19-20.09.2013. It was further urged that input is defined in Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, means all goods used in factory by the manufacturer of the final product and further input services as defined in Rule 2(l) - includes all services used by the manufacturer for manufacture of dutiable goods. It was also urged that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant having purchased the input on high sea sale basis from the original importer (in whose name the bill of lading existed), all the documents cannot be in the name of the appellant, as it is practice in the trade that the various service providers for port charges, clearance charges, etc. raised the invoices for their services in the name of the party whose name appear in the bill of lading. Admittedly, appellant being a purchaser of the goods in transit from high sea seller, had filed the Bill of Entry (also mentioning the name of the other party alongside in whose name the bill of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained in the document, as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, i.e. service tax registration number, address, name of service provider and receiver, description and value of service, service tax payable, etc. 9. It was further urged that the extended period of limitation is not invokable as appellant has maintained proper record of the transaction and also filed the returns with the Department under the scheme of the Act read with the Rules. There being no element of suppression or mis-representation or fraud, the show cause notice issued invoking extended period is bad and fit to be dropped. Reliance was placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in CCE vs. Jala Ram Plastic Pack -2014 (34) STR 56 and Pharmalab Equipments Pvt. Ltd., vs. CCE, Ahmedabad- 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri. Ahmd.). 10. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 12.01.2016 and the proposed demand was confirmed alongwith interest. Penalty was imposed @ 50% under Section 11AC(1)(c) read with Section 11AC of the Act as substituted. 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Container No., Bill of Lading No., etc. Accordingly, series of transaction is corelatable to the appellant. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant paid for such services including service tax and have accordingly accounted for the same and taken cenvat credit, being input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. There is no violation of the provisions of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules. Accordingly, prays for allowing their appeal. 13. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 14. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, I find that admittedly the melting scrap purchased by the appellant on high sea sale, is their input for manufacture of M.S. billets. I further find that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of invoice issued by a manufacturer for clearance of inputs from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer. Similarly, an importer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
