TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the credit availed is right or wrong - the said services of repair were not rendered as part of warranty requirement or as having any nexus to the manufacture and clearance of final products but the said credit of the invoices raised by the input services providers have been availed. CENVAT credit - invoices issued by Ajax Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Held that: - appellant has produced on record the copy of the said agreement dt. 31/09/2009 which has been renewed and valid up to 01/04/2014 but the same has not been considered by the authorities below and have wrongly come to the conclusion that the said agreement has lapsed after 01/04/2009 - credit wrongly denied. CENVAT credit - invoices issued by Jayalakshmi Enterprises - denial on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of penalty is not warranted. Appeals allowed subject to verification of the documents concerning the CENVAT credit of ₹ 4,62,870/- and ₹ 33,063/- - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21621/2017-SM, E/21622/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20554-20555/2018 - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri K. Parameswaran, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg Both the appeals are directed against the common impugned order dt. 16/08/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Orders-in-Original. 2.1. Briefly the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand of ₹ 5,66,424/-. The original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 77,189/- along with interest and equivalent penalty proposed in the second show-cause notice dt. 05/05/2015. Aggrieved by the two separate Orders-in-Original, appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the common impugned order rejected the appeals. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the submissions of the appellant and without properly appreciating the factual and legal position. He further submitted that the credit on the invoices issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribution to the extent of 90% (after deducting 10% for trading activities on common input services) and even otherwise, the said Yeshwanthpur office is only corporate office and the appellant herein has only one factory, the credit availed could not have been considered as irregular in terms of the principles laid down in several relied upon case laws. Further with regard to reversal of credit already made to the extent of ₹ 33,305/- on the services relating to incineration of waste and renting of furniture with interest, the learned counsel submitted that invoking extended period of limitation to impose penalty is not sustainable. He further submitted that the denial of credit of ₹ 77,189/- in the subsequent show-cause notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities. In support of this, the appellant also relied upon the following decisions:- i. ITI Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-2352-CESTAT-BANG] ii. Veena Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(42) STR 299] iii. Gujarat Forging Ltd. Vs. CCE [2014(36) STR 677] IV. Carrier Airconditioning Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(41) STR 1004) 6.2. Secondly with regard to denial of credit on the invoices issued by Ajax Engineering Pvt. Ltd., I find that the appellant has annexed with his reply to the show-cause notice along with sample invoices which have been ignored and even the fact of renewal of said agreement dt. 31/03/2014 has been ignored totally. Further I find that appellant has produced on record the copy of the said agreement dt. 31/09/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shwanthpur office to the factory of the appellant herein under challans after excluding 10% of the amount proportionately for the trading turnover and hence only 90% of the credit as per the input service invoices had actually been taken in the said factory and more over, the appellant has only one manufacturing unit and there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the services and its utilization thereof. In support of his submission, the appellant also relied upon the following decisions:- i. Inox air Products Ltd. vs. CCE [2015(38) STR 79] ii. Jai Chemicals vs. CCE [2015(40) STR 345 (Tri. Del.)] Since the appellant has only one factory and the credit was availed on the registered office and not at the factory is only technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
