TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice, it is deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. Adjudicating authority with a direction to verify all the documents which are in possession of the Appellant to the extent of the confirmation of demand of ₹ 2,36,08,399/- only. Needless to say that sufficient time and opportunity to represent be given to the Appellant. Demand of Service Tax on legal charges - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the documents submitted with the Appeal Paper book that the Appellant has not made any payments to the Advocate concerned and that the charges have been debited by the bank. Also from the invoice of the Advocate it is clear that the same has not been issued in favour of the Appellant. Hence the demand on such invoices cannot survive. Penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The captioned case only relates to non- production of documents by the Appellant before the Department and there is no allegation of availment of Cenvat credit without receipt of goods and /or services. Hence the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director is unjustified and we accordingly set aside the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.78838/18. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of M. S. Bars TMT Rods, M. S. Ingot and Runner Riser classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading 72149910, 72061090 and 72043000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (in short Tariff ). During the audit of the records of the Appellant by the departmental audit team, it was noticed that the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit of ₹ 35,77,20,446/- in its ER 1 returns filed for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. However, since the Appellant No.1 was unable to produce proper documents in support of such availment of Cenvat credit the Appellant No.1 had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the Department was of the view that the entire Cenvat credit was liable to be reversed by the Appellant No.1. It was also alleged that the Appellant No.1 had not paid Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on certain legal fee amounting to ₹ 7,663/- for the period 2012-13. Based on the above, on March 22, 2016, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Audit Commissionerate, Patna (erstwhile) (hereinaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,446/- for Cenvat credit on the ground that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has merely relied on the Range Superintendent s report without ascertaining whether all the original documents pertaining to transportation and delivery of goods were verified by the Range Superintendent and whether the original invoices were verified by the Range Superintendent. 8. Shri Ankit Kanodia, Ld. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant company and its Director. He produced a statement showing the break up of demand for Cenvat credit as below: Sl. No. Particulars Rs. Rs. Cenvat Credit demand 2,36,08,399 A Input Credit disallowed for 11-12 As per ER 1 6,49,49,080 as per verification report 5,61,43,401 Difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exed with the Appeal Paper book which may be verified and which had also been made available earlier by the Appellant No.1 to the Department. He thus concludes that since the demand is based on a report which has not been shared by the Department and moreover the Appellant No.1 has always been in a position to provide all the required documents as may be desired, the matter may be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documents to the extent in dispute and the balance demand may be dropped. As regards imposition of penalty on the Director, he relies on various judicial precedents to state that none of the offences under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted in the given case of the Appellant No.1 to impose any penalty on the Director. 9. He further relied on the following judgments in support of his case: a. TIN MANUFACTURING CO. (INDIA) Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD [2017 (347) E.L.T. 370 (Tri. - All.)] b. SYNDICATE BANK Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2010 (18) S.T.R. 748 (Tri. - Bang.)] 10. He has also produced an independent Chartered Accountant s Certificate along with entire Input Cenvat credit register ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and passed the captioned order. Thus, to meet the ends of justice we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. Adjudicating authority with a direction to verify all the documents which are in possession of the Appellant to the extent of the confirmation of demand of ₹ 2,36,08,399/- only. Needless to say that sufficient time and opportunity to represent be given to the Appellant. It is expected that the Ld. Adjudicating authority would complete the above exercise within 90 (ninety) days from the receipt of this order. As regards the demand of Service Tax on legal charges, it is seen from the documents submitted with the Appeal Paper book that the Appellant has not made any payments to the Advocate concerned and that the charges have been debited by the bank. Also from the invoice of the Advocate it is clear that the same has not been issued in favour of the Appellant. Hence the demand on such invoices cannot survive and we order so. 18. As regards the penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, we are of the view that the captioned case only relates to non- production of documents by the Appellant before the Department and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
