TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside - appeal filed by the party is allowed - ST/501/2009 and ST/154/2010 - A/1085-1086/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 30-7-2010 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Modern Petrofils (respondent) is engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn. The appellant availed credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,37,618/- during the period October 2005 to March 2006 on the basis of invoices which were not in the name of their factory. In the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has held that this was only a procedural omission and therefore the credit taken by the appellant was in order. On this ground a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of invoices which was not in the name of the factory, extended period had been rightly invoked and penalty had been correctly imposed. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that having dropped the demand, the Commissioner should not have imposed penalty. He submits that the omission was only procedural and further in view of the fact that there was no allegation that input service was not received, there was no offence committed by the appellants. He also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Godrej Soaps v. CCE Mumbai reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 25 (Tri. - LB) to support the contention that once demand for duty is dropped, no penalty can be imposed. 4. I have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit on the basis of documents not prescribed under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it can be said that there was suppression of fact will full misstatement etc. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. L T Ltd. [2007 (211) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)]. In view of the fact that there is no allegation of non receipt of input service or the allegation of service not relatable to the factory and also in view of the fact that invoice was in the name of head office of the same factory and not in the name of some one else, the decision of the Commissioner that extended period is not invocable also has to be upheld. Since I have taken a view that appellants are eligible for the credit and suppression of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
