TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of debit notes, which were held as not valid documents - Held that: - Department does not have a contention that the appellant has not discharged the service tax on the said services on which credit has been availed - the disallowance of credit on this ground is unjustified. CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - credit availed on the basis of photocopies - Held that: - The appellant cannot avail credit on photocopies. These are not valid documents for availing credit. Further, if such practice of availing credit on photocopies of invoices is allowed, then it will lead to false claims of credit made by assessees - credit denied. CENVAT credit of ₹ 16,21,219/- denied on various input services stating that these services are not availed in relation to the activity of manufacture - Held that: - According to appellant, all these services have an integral connection with the manufacture of finished products. That these services were consumed to carry out the activity of manufacture effectively and also to provide export of services / goods - it is found that the adjudicating authority has not made adequate discussion in this regard. Ld. counsel has submitted that they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed amounts wrongly availed as Cenvat Credit at appropriate rate under with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944. e) I hereby impose penalty of ₹ 3,40,78,013/- (Rupees Three Crores Forty Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand and Thirteen only) under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC (1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. I hereby allow the option of paying penalty of 25% of the duty determined as above, subject to the condition that M/s.Terex India Private Limited makes payment of the entire duty, interest and the reduced penalty within 30 days. 4. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 5. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. D.Naveen explained the details of the demand involved in each of the appeals which is as under:- Appeal No Period Total demand NO ISD Invoices Addressed to Bangalore and Pune Offices CHA Services Debit Notes/Xerox Copies of Invoices All other Miscellaneous Services not relating to manufacture E/41862/2015 March 2009 to Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 2014 339848.00 0 310438.00 0 0 29410.00 E/41701/2017 Nov 2014 Dec 2014 392880.00 0 250967.00 0 0 141913.00 E/41700/2017 Jan 2015 to March 2015 155927.00 0 57474.00 0 55548.00 42905.00 GRAND TOTAL 74198845.00 61111463.00 10055221.00 394521.00 1016421.00 1621219.00 6.1 She submitted that the period involved is from March 2009 to March 2015. An amount of ₹ 6,11,11,463/- is denied alleging that the appellant has not taken ISD registration. She adverted to para 6.2 of the show cause notice and submitted that the department alleges that the appellant without obtaining registration as Input Service Distributor issued ISD invoices on the basis of which an amount of ₹ 6, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016 (45) STR 124 (Tri. Bang.) and Magnum Ventures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017 (47) STR 249 (Tri. All.) and Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016 (43) STR 124 (Tri. Kol.). 6.5 An amount of ₹ 55,548/- was disallowed for the reason that credit has been availed on photocopies of invoices. The ld. counsel submitted that the original invoices were misplaced and therefore the credit was availed on the photocopies. 6.6 The appellant has availed credit to the tune of ₹ 16,21,219/- on various services like membership charges, exhibition stall construction charges, delegate fee, brokerage etc. She submitted that the credit on these services have been disallowed for the reason that they do not have any nexus with the manufacturing activity. The appellant would be able to establish by document that these services have been consumed in relation to manufacturing activity and that the matter pertaining to this amount may be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 7. Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan argued the matter on behalf of the Revenue. 7.1 O the first issue, with regard to credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it as improper, we do not find it necessary to enter into such discussion. The allegation in the show cause notice is confined to the aspect that the appellants have not taken ISD registration. The relevant paragraph in the show cause notice is reproduced as under:- 6.2 It appears from the above provisions read with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, that inasmuch as M/s. Terex India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi has not registered themselves as an input service distributor and issued the input service document, on the basis of which an amount of ₹ 6,11,11,463/- as detailed in Annexure - XII to this notice, has been availed by TIPL as input credit in contravention to Rules 3, 4 and9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 . 9.2 The ld. Counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant has obtained ISD registration in 2008. A copy of the ISD registration is also furnished before us. We therefore find that the disallowance of credit for the reason that appellant has not obtained ISD registration is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 9.3 An amount of ₹ 1,00,55,221/- has been disallowed stating the reason that the invoices were raised in the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that these services include services like membership charges which are paid for taking membership in industrial association, exhibition stall charges, delegate fee, sales commission etc. According to appellant, all these services have an integral connection with the manufacture of finished products. That these services were consumed to carry out the activity of manufacture effectively and also to provide export of services / goods. We find that the adjudicating authority has not made adequate discussion in this regard. Ld. counsel has submitted that they would be able to establish the nexus of the services with the output services / manufacturing activity, if they are given a further chance. We, therefore, deem it fit to remand this issue to the adjudicating authority. 10. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of allowing the credit in respect of the services availed except on photocopies of invoices. The issue with regard to credit disallowed alleging that the services do not have nexus with the manufacturing activity to the tune of ₹ 16,21,219/- is remanded to the adjudicating authority leaving this iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
