TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Calico land in their RC vide their letter dated 20.12.2007 and the same was granted by the excise authorities with effect from 16.05.2008. It is also a fact that the wall around the Calico land was got constructed by the appellant; purchase order as well as invoice are also in the name of HPCL, i.e. the appellant. In view of this mere non-inclusion of Calico land in the excise registration at the time when the services were availed is only a procedural lapse which was rectified subsequently by the service tax authorities w.e.f 16.05.2008 by including the said land in the registration certificate of the appellant. Thus in considered view, input service credit cannot be denied on this mere procedural lapse to the appellant It is per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods i.e. petroleum products falling under Chapter 27 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Cenvat Credit facility in respect of the inputs, capital goods and input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The appellants were issued show-cause notice dated 06.10.2005 for recovery of duty amounting to ₹ 5,55,112/- under Section 11A(1) of the Act allegedly for violation of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the appellant has claimed service tax credit on the basis of invoice raised in respect of Calico land which was not incorporated in the manufacturing premises of the appellant, and secondly, in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the contractor and the invoice issued by the contractor are only in the name of the appellant. They have also attached the invoice and the purchase order in the present appeal. Further submission of the counsel is that M/s. Ex-serviceman Airlinks Services Ltd. had a valid service tax registration no. but the Jt. Commissioner ignored this aspect. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Now the question before me in this appeal is whether the denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax in case of Calico on the ground that Calico is not incorporated in the excise registration certificate of appellant is justified or not an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration under the service tax but inadvertently registration no. is not mentioned in the invoice. He produced certificate of service tax registration of the service provider dated 03.09.2002 whereas services have been provided in July/August 2007 much after the registration. Both the authorities below failed to consider this fact and wrongly denied the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, the alleged demand is further reduced by ₹ 1,08,930/- on this count. Ld. Counsel in support of his argument cited the following decisions:- i) C. Metric Solution P. Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 460 ii) Well Known Polyesters Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 411 iii) Sanghi Industries Ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 375. 9. It is pertinent to note that in respect of few invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
