TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he limited purpose of confirming the quantum of such credit that can be availed, by causing verification of the documents. Penalty - Held that: - there was no malafide in availing the disputed credits, hence there is a reasonable cause for having taken the credits, albeit wrongly, in respect of Award Scheme Event, which they were not eligible - penalty to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 20.03.2017 upheld the order of original authority demanding reversal of credit to the extent of ₹ 31,21,518/- with interest thereon. Lower appellate authority has also upheld the imposition of penalties of ₹ 12,63,220/- under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and ₹ 60,000/- under Rule 15 (1) ibid. Hence these appeals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Advocate also draws attention to para 6.1 of the SCN on page 61 of the appeal book wherein it has been alleged that assessee has shown credit particulars as consolidated amount in their ER-1 returns and they have not shown the details of spilt up of service wise credit taken on the individual services. She also submits that they had however given the details of total input credit availed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice is upheld. 4. The only issue that remains to be adjudicated concerns Event Management Services. From the facts and submissions, it appears to reason that these services are eligible input services since they are utilized for promoting sales of the vehicles manufactured by the appellant. However, appellants have not been able to produce sufficient documentary evidence before both the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it availed by them has been reflected in the ER-1 returns. Only input service wise break up was not indicated since there is no provision thereof in the ER-1 return. I find that there was no malafide in availing the disputed credits, hence there is a reasonable cause for having taken the credits, albeit wrongly, in respect of Award Scheme Event, which they were not eligible. This being so, I hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
