9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals), Mumbai III. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer and have availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on Outward Courier charges, Telephone Bills and Cargo Handling Charges etc. among others. Pursuant to audit by the Revenue, of the records of the appellant, for the year 2009-10, in the Audit Note, it was observed that the appellant have availed CENVAT Credit as mentioned herein above which is inadmissible totaling an amount of Rs. 4,77,783/-. It appeared to the Revenue that as per the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the said services are not covered and accordingly, the assessee have availed CENVAT Credit in contravention of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able services and they have also filed ST-3 returns declaring therein that they are availing CENVAT Credit on the input services. The said facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and, therefore, as per the facts and the records maintained and/or the returns filed, there is no question of any suppression, fraud etc. enabling the Revenue to invoke the extended period of limitation. 2.2 The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 31/3/2012 and the proposed demand was confirmed along with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals0, who vide the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted, stating that the show-cause notice as well as the Order-in-Original are silent as to what are the other proposed services and the amounts attributable on each such services proposed to be disallowed. Further, there is no discussion or whisper either in the show-cause notice or in the Order-in-Original. This correspondence with the Revenue went on till end of January, 2014 and thereafter being so advised, the appellant immediately filed appeal against the impugned order on 28.2.2014. Thus, it is evident that there is no deliberate latches on the part of the appellant and as such the delay being fully explained in approaching this Tribunal the same may be condoned. 4. Heard the parties on COD and perused the revenant correspondence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
