TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004 are not invokable - the appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat Credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2289/2009 - A/61975/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. B.L. Narshiman, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand on account of reversal of Cenvat Credit availed by them was confirmed and penalty was also imposed on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants is manufacture of stainless steel ingots, blooms, plates, slabs, coils a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. Ongoing through the facts of the case, we find that the issue emerges before us is that during the impugned period whether Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applicable to the facts of the case or not For better appreciation, Rule 9(1)(b) is extracted here below:- Rule 9. Documents and accounts.- (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely :- (a) an invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the Excise Act, or of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty. Ongoing through the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b), we find that the said rule is invokable only for Cenvat Credit availed on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by manufacturer or importer of excisable goods for inputs or capital goods. The said rule is not applicable to the services received, admittedly, the issue before us is that the appellant has availed Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid for the services received from a service provider located outside India under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the appellants were searched and Sh. Ramesh Chand Agarwal, Authorized Signatory one of the appellant accepted that they have not received the goods from Sh. Rupesh Bansal during the period February and March 2003 and received only invoices. For the invoices issued during that period, he voluntarily reverse the Cenvat Credit to the tune of ₹ 4,51,250/-. On the basis of this investigation, a case was made out against the appellants to deny the Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by Sh. Rupesh Bansal in the name of various firms to the appellants to the tune of ₹ 40,54,339/- and to impose the penalty on all the appellants. The matter was adjudicated, the demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed against the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and considered the submissions. 6. I find that in this case the appellants have asked the cross-examination of Sh. Rupesh Bansal and transporters which were not granted to the appellants on the premise that Sh. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal has admitted that they have not received the goods, therefore, what is admitted need not to be proved. I find that during the course of investigation, Sh. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal has categorically stated that during the period from February to March 2003, they have not received the goods along with invoices but for rest of the demand, he has not admitted, in that circumstances, the demand on account of denial of Cenvat Credit for the period February to March 2003 on the invoices issued by Sh. Rupesh Bansal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
