9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices for the input service which were invoiced not in the name of the appellant but to the Divisions of L&T other than Heavy Engineering Division (HED), therefore appellant wrongly taken Cenvat Credit. The show cause notice was issued proposing demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 13,69,842/-, interest under Section 11AB and also penalty under Section 11AC. The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 31/5/2013 confirmed demand and imposed penalty of equal amount and demanded interest as proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said original order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected appeal of the appellant vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat Credit rules, Cenvat credit in respect of input service is available on the condition, the service so provided is received by the recipient, and the same is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In the present, case though the services were provided in the premises of job worker but indeed in the relation to the manufacturing process of the appellant carried out by their job worker. Since the payment of service chargers and Service Tax was made by the appellant to the service provider, these facts constitute that services were received by the appellant and used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final product. In view of this fact merely because name of the job worker is appearing on the invoices, Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the whole case is revolving only on the aspect that invoices of services are not bearing the address of the appellant. However the name of the appellant is indeed mentioned in the invoices. I think on that basis alone it was wrongly concluded by the lower authority that in absence of address it cannot be ascertained that the services provided and covered under the input services invoices were meant for the appellant. I observed that name of the appellant is clearly mentioned on the invoices alongwith name and the address of the job worker i.e. M/s. R&C, SBS Marg, Mulund has also mentioned. As per the submission of the appellant which they have been making before both lower authorities that R&C Ltd. is job worker of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
