9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.07.2015 seeking recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 6,80,885/- as per Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being 5%/6% of the value of exempted services rendered by the appellant along with interest. Some amount which has already been reversed has been proposed to be appropriated towards the demand. It was also found that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit to the tune of Rs. 1,92,107/- on invoices for manpower supply issued by their service provider raised in the name of the office in Hyderabad but the credit was availed in their Visakhapatnam unit. The show cause notice sought to deny this input credit on the ground that there is no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portionate Cenvat Credit along with interest, the demand on this count does not sustain. As far as the second issue of Cenvat Credit being availed on the input service invoices for manpower provision by their service provider M/s Genius Consultants Ltd is concerned, he would submit that as per their accounting practices all invoices were being raised in the name of their Hyderabad office even when the services were utilized in their Visakhapatnam unit. Therefore, the invoices were raised in the name of Hyderabad but that should not disentitle them from availing Cenvat Credit in the unit where the services were actually used. He submits a letter dated 18.10.2016 issued by their service provider indicating that the bills in question as listed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Whether the appellant is entitled to reverse proportionate amount of Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 instead of paying 5%/6% of the value of exempted services. If so, whether there is any evidence that they have so reversed the amount. b) Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the input invoices raised in the name of their head office, where the services are said to have been utilized in their Visakhapatnam office. 7. As far as the first issue is concerned, it is not in dispute that before the first appellate authority or the lower authority, the appellant has not produced evidence of having reversed proportionate amount of Cenvat Credit. The appellant has now produced a Chartered Accountant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
