Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai I Versus Kaycee Finance Services Ltd

2016 (7) TMI 156 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Cenvat Credit - original duty payment document / invoices were lost / destroyed in the fire - department contended that respondent were not having original input invoices to be produced for verification and the Cenvat credit was availed in respect of non existing invoices - Held that:- even though invoices have been destroyed in fire but if invoices have been recorded in the ledger and books of accounts of the respondent the Cenvat credit can not be denied. Respondent could not have recorded the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tself it cannot be said whether the invoices were existing or not therefore if it is proved that invoices were received by the respondent, longer period of demand is correctly invokable. As per my above discussion, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass a denovo adjudication order after verification of books of accounts, ledger and payment particulars towards such invoices. - Decided partly in favor of revenue. - APPEAL NO. ST/89650/13 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fact of the case is that during the course of audit of the respondent's record, audit officers observed that original invoices on which Cenvat credit have been availed are not available, the same were asked from the respondent to produce, on which respondent submitted that original invoices were shifted to store in the Cotton Corporation of India Kalamboli which subsequently lost/destroyed in an accident of fire occurred on 2/11/2011. Respondent in their letter dated 18/1/2012 informed that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity while adjudicating show cause notice denied the Cenvat credit, demanded interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Aggrieved by the Adjudication order dated 15/4/2013 respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was allowed accepting the submission made by the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue filed this appeal. 4. Shri. R.K. Das, Jt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the correspondence made by the respondent, they have not intimated regarding the fire incidence. Therefore conduct of the respondent clearly shows that original invoices were not existing and to hide this fact respondent has given excuses. In this given fact, the original authority has rightly denied Cenvat credit, Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) without appreciating the vital fact i.e. non availability of the invoice, allowed the appeal of the respondent, which deserves to be set aside. He submit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubmits that Ld. Commissioner has also considering the limitation on the ground that show cause notice issued after gap of two years from the date of audit, Commissioner found that there is no evidence on record that the respondent had committed fraud or suppression of material fact from the department and the respondent initimated to the departmental authority about fire incidence. He submits that since service tax paying documents itself were not available, that itself is evidence of suppressio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

record of the appeal, it is observed that this matter was listed on number of times earlier i.e. 5/3/2015, 18/6/2015, 14/8/2015, 9/10/2015, 29/12/2015 and 29/1/2016 and non of the said dates of hearing was attended by the respondent therefore it is clear that respondent is not serious to pursue their case, therefore I have no option except to proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of submission made by Ld. A.R. and the material available on record. 7. On careful consideration of the submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version