TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit which precedent is followed till date as found from the decision in BHALLA TECHTRAN INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS CCE, NOIDA [ 2015 (7) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] credits on the basis of those decisions can t be held to be inadmissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 85937 of 2018 - A/86248/2019 - Dated:- 16-7-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri B.B. Mohite, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Order for recovery of CENVAT credit of ₹ 17,05,140/- as inadmissible credit availed by the appellant that was reduced to ₹ 12,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) of CENVAT credit on tax paid through invoices of M/s Sapphire Technologies Ltd., Mumbai for ₹ 11,01,677/- was that wrong address was mentioned in the said invoices, as Head Office staff of the appellant dealing with imports were working from that office but invoices clearly indicated the appellant s company name and the factory location Kalmeshwar which can be verified from Annexure- F1 of the appeal memo. While conceding that the invoices were inadvertently cancelled, he submitted that a certificate in writing was issued by the service provider M/s Sapphire Technologies Ltd., Mumbai that those invoices were valid invoices and address was accordingly corrected in all 18 invoices with signature and seal of the Director of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y service provider M/s Seaways Shipping and Logistic Ltd. involving CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,31,614/- that was disallowed on the ground that tax was not paid by M/s Seaways Shipping and Logistic Ltd., learned Counsel for the appellant in referring to this Tribunal s decision reported in 2013 (30) STR 699 (Tri.-Del.) submitted that after making payment of value of service and Service Tax to the sub-contractor, CHA M/s Seaways had raised the invoices to the appellant and CHA being an intermediary, the benefit of credit of Service Tax paid by the sub-agency should not be denied to the appellant. He also put forth submissions on non-applicability of period of limitation and penalty with reference to the decisions reported in 2013 (291) ELT 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , corrections were not made by the same person or address of the service provider in the invoices and in its subsequent certificate issue is different are too technical, since in the reply to the audit report as seen in Annexure-B of the appeal memo at page no. 46 47 clearly indicates that appellant had submitted copies of invoices incorporating the correct factory address and copy of certificate dated 17.10.2015 in the form of enclosures to the reply to show-cause notice. Be that as it may, in view of the decision of this Tribunal reported in 2006 (199) ELT 47 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of Om Textiles vs. CCE, New Delhi, 2007 (5) STR 18 (Tri.- Chennai) in the case of CCE, Salem Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., invoices showing wrong address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
