TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of receipt of the input services, the input service providers were not registered and had not mentioned Service tax registration no. in the invoices. I find no reason to take a different view in the present appeals - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/2957-2958/2010-EX (SM) - Final Order No. 53877-53878/2016 - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, A.R. for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The two appeals deal with identical facts for the same assessee for different periods and hence are decided in this order. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such service or receipt of payment whichever is earlier. In the present two instances which are the subject matter of these two appeals, Show Cause Notices were issued and were adjudicated under separate orders in which the Cenvat credit amounts were disallowed and demanded. When the issue was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), through separate orders both dated 3rd June 2010, he upheld the orders of the original authority and disallowed the Cenvat credits to the extent of ₹ 11,24,127/- and ₹ 7,04,314/- with equal amount of penalty and payment of interest. Both the orders are challenged before the Tribunal mainly on the following grounds: (i) The service tax stands paid by the service provider and subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Rules, 1994. 6. It is not disputed that the service provider has raised the invoice for recovery of service tax. There is also no dispute that these service tax amounts which are relatable to the service rendered by service provider to the appellant. Based on such supplementary invoices the Cenvat credit has been availed by the appellant on cargo handling services which have been used by the appellant. The main lacuna based on which the authorities below have ordered for recovery of the Cenvat credit is that the service provider was not registered at the time of issue of the original invoice. They have got themselves registered at a later date and issued supplementary invoices well after time limits specified in Rule 4A. But I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
