Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 763 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - the credit was availed by the assessee on the basis of three invoices issued by the head office which is registered as ISD - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant would not be in a position to explain the correctness or otherwise of the credit availed by the head office, for which records are being maintained at the head office only. Further the head office, as a registered ISD, is required to file returns etc. to their jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. No objection seems to have been raised by the jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities of the head office. It is well settled law that assessment made at the end of the service provider cannot be re-opened at the end of the service recipient by resorting to objection relatable to the service provider. As such, we find no justification for denial of credit to the appellant. Denial of credit - HELD THAT:- The appellant contended that all the documents were seized by the Department and still lying in their custody. As such they are not in a position to explain the availment of the said credit unless such documents are returned to them. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s factory was visited by the officers on 05/08/2014 whereas show cause notices have been issued on 30/03/2016. Apart from the fact that the entire facts were being reflected by the appellant in their statutory records from August, 2013 onwards, which fact would not justify the invocation of longer period, we also note that the show cause notice has been issued even after normal period from the date of visit of the officers - The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VERSUS TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (1) TMI 760 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has observed that issuance of the show cause notice after a gap of twenty two months from the date of audit is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|