TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have paid invoice value to the service provider which can also be verified from the books of account. Since this verification have not been conducted by the lower authority matter needs to be remanded to the original authority. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Even intimation of fire incidence is of no help to the respondent as from the intimation itself 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, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of Cenvat credit availed during the Period October, 2006 to March, 2007 for an amount of ₹ 23,22,413/-. The Adjudicating authority 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.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterating the grounds of appeal, further submits that respondent could not produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. As regard the intimation regarding the fire, when the invoices were not available, incidence of fire is irrelevant therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that show cause notice is time bar. Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Cema Electric Lightning Products India P. Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent the Cenvat credit can not be denied. Respondent could not have recorded the invoice in the ledger unless physical invoices were available. It is not only the invoice or ledger entry but the respondent might have paid invoice value to the service provider which can also be verified from the books of account. Since this verification have not been conducted by the lower authority matter needs to be remanded to the original authority. As regard the limitation, I do not agree with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) for the reason that respondent could not produce any invoice before audit as well as at subsequent stage and if it is established, invoices were not available, show cause notice cannot be held time bar. Even intima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
