Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 562 - CESTAT BANGALORECENVAT credit - duty paying documents - non-submission of the relevant documents to be eligible for availment of credit under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - credit denied to the appellant on the ground that the invoices are addressed to their Yeshwanthpur unit whereas the services were availed at Doddaballapur unit - credit also denied on the ground that the appellant have not produced the documentary evidence to show that the services were actually availed at Doddaballapur unit - Time Limitation. HELD THAT:- Perusal of various invoices produced by the appellant clearly shows that in some invoices the name of both the units i.e. Yeshwanthpur as well as Doddaballapur are mentioned but in some invoices only the name of Yeshwanthpur unit is mentioned. As per the appellant’s case, these services have been used at Doddaballapur unit because the said unit came into operation in 2008 and these input services were used for the said unit after it came into operation. Further as per RG-1 register of Yeshwanthpur factory, the operation was stopped from January 2010 onwards and there was no production and clearance of the goods from the said factory. Further, the invoices produced on record pertain to the services which were availed after the closure of Yeshwanthpur factory which clearly shows that those services were availed by Doddaballapur unit. Further, it is not the case of the Department that appellant have availed the CENVAT credit at both the places and the mentioning of the address of Yeshwanthpur factory on some of the invoices is only procedural lapse for which the CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire demand is barred by limitation because the extended period has been invoked merely on the ground that irregular credit was detected during audit otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. Whereas the appellant has been filing the returns regularly for Doddaballapur unit and has been showing the credit availed. Appellant has also produced the copies of the returns filed by him from Doddaballapur factory under the Service Tax Rules which clearly indicate the availment of credit on the disputed invoices. In view of this, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of tax - Extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed on merits as well as on limitation - decided in favor of appellant.
|