9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r investigation, following discrepancies were noticed:- No invoices available in respect of certain credits availed; Only photocopies of some of the invoices were available; Some invoices were not in the name of the appellant; and Credit of services, not covered under input services was availed by them. The period involved is from April 2009 to October 2010. 1.2 A show cause notice was issued to them demanding duty of Rs. 24,71,661/- along with interest and proposing penalty under Section 11AC. The show cause notice also proposed seizure of 7691 pieces of unaccounted V belts/fan belts valued at Rs. 2,19,257/-. The matter was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority disallowed the cenvat credit and imposed the penalty of Rs. 24,71,661/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,55,663/- is not allowable. The details of amount allowable and not allowable are given in the annexure. 3. Further in terms of para 9 of the O-in-A, wherein it has been held that the penalty is not imposable for the period prior to 27/02/2010 and the penalty is imposable equal to the amount of input service credit found wrongly availed by the appellant for the period w.e.f. 27/02/2010 only. Out of the total credit amount of Rs. 5,55,663/- found to be not allowable, an amount of Rs. 1,96,907/- has been found pertaining to the period w.e.f. 27/02/2010 on which equal of amount of penalty i.e. Rs. 1,96,907/- is imposable in terms of para 9 of the subject O-in-A." 1.4 The appellant, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R for the Revenue opposes the contention of the appellants and reiterates the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5.1 I find that the appellants are contesting the demand of Rs. 30,060/- on the ground that original invoices have been misplaced and of Rs. 1,19,844/- on the ground that the activities in Delhi office related to business. In this regard, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction to disallow the credit for which only photo copies are available and there are no original invoices cannot be faulted. If photo copies as an alternative are accepted for allowing cenvat credit, it enhances the chances of fraud and mis-use of facility. 5.2 As for the credit of Rs. 1,19,844/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces issued in the name of the other party and never supplied the original records till the time show cause notice was issued. The appellants were repeatedly requested by the Range Office through numerous letters in 2011 to deposit the wrongly availed cenvat credit of service tax and to supply the original invoices for verification. The same was not done in respect of contested cenvat credit amount and this way there was clearly suppression with an intent to service tax. Hence penalty as well as extended period have been rightly applied. In a similar situation where inadmissible credit was detected in Audit scrutiny CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 200(All.), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held as under:- "32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
