Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 770 - CESTAT NEW DELHICENVAT Credit - credit availed on the strength of bogus invoices raised by M/s Spring Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (M/s SVPL) in contravention of Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 - entire case of the Department is based on the statements recorded - Department has failed to make compliance of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The proceedings in question are quasi criminal in nature as there is not only the demand of the reversal of cenvat credit, but also the imposition of penalties in question, it is held that Section 9D is to be construed strictly. It is already observed to be mandatory provisions, resultantly, it is held that the statements as were recorded during investigation are not admissible into evidence. Coming to the remaining evidence on record, we observe that to prove its case, the appellant has provided thirteen work orders as were issued to M/s SVPL to seek to receive such services from M/s SVPL as are mentioned in those work orders. The rate of consideration for receiving said services is also mentioned against each work order, a tabulated description of these work orders is also recorded in the Order-in-Original. It is appellant’s case that M/s SVPL has executed the aforesaid work orders during the period from December 2010 to March 2011 and there upon has raised thirteen invoices on the appellant on different dates for a total value of Rs. 19,55,61,900/- including the service tax of Rs. 1,82,61,900/- (the amount in question), the appellant has submitted the Chartered Engineer’s Certificate certifying the aforesaid contention of the appellant, there is no evidence on record other than the statements which have already been held in admissible, to falsify the said Chartered Engineer’s Certificate, it is held that the Adjudicating Authority below has wrongly discarded the said certificate. No other expert opinion has been obtained by the department. The said documentary evidence is held to have wrongly been rejected while giving precedents to the oral evidence. There is no other evidence produced by the department except the statements recorded during investigation apparently and admittedly none of the deponents were allowed to be cross examined by the appellants, there deposition is highly insufficient to preceed over the documentary evidence produced by the appellants. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is sufficiently proving the element of service tax alongwith on value of services received from M/s SVPL, no question arises to deny him the credit of the said element paid. The findings in the order under challenge, are therefore, not sustainable - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
|