9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the benefit of CENVAT credit on inputs, input services and capital goods. After verification of records the respondent was issued with the Show Cause Notice for recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs. 28,99,489/- availed on health insurance services and also for recovery of Rs. 5,08,000/- availed on invoice dated 07.05.2004, on the ground that the service is received prior to 10.09.2004. After adjudication the original authority confirmed the demand interest and imposed penalty. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the credit. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the department has filed the present appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. AR, Shri. P.S. Reddy reiterated the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 10.09.2004 the credit is not admissible. The Ld. Counsel respondent has adverted to the reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent. It is seen from this reply that the respondent has availed input services namely engineering services which was a composite service. He submitted that though the invoice was dated 07.05.2004, the respondent has not paid on that date and that the services were received only after 10.09.2004. The relevant portion of reply notice reads as under: In the instant case, we are enclosing herewith copy of Purchase Order No. 6734/VRCFP/09 dated 15.10.2003 (Refer Attachment No.1) wherein as per the payment terms, 25% will be paid on submission of draft utility package. The payments made to M/s. EIL are for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or after 10.09.2004 there is no justification for assuming that the services were received prior to 10.09.2004 and hence the Show Cause Notice needs to be dropped for this item altogether. From the above explanation given by the respondent it is seen that the services were composite services and the services were received after 10.09.2004 and the payment for the said service is made on 16.12.2004 and thereafter. Therefore, the contention of the department that the appellants received the service prior to 10.09.2004 is baseless. On appreciating the facts and the evidence I am convinced that the respondent has received the service after 10.09.2004. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the credit on this count. The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
