TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears. Therefore, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable - the availment of cenvat credit at this stage cannot be disputed by the revenue - Credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - denial of cenvat credit on the ground that at the time of issuance of invoices were in the name of the appellant located at Ludhiana whereas the appellant was registered at Mohali Punjab in the jurisdiction of Mohali Range - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the CBSL Cable is the same which is registered with the department and the appellant has availed the services and paid service tax thereon, in that circumstances, the cenvat credit of ₹ 7,41,600/- cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, the same is admissible to the appellant. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 1,58,07,543/-. Therefore, it was alleged that the appellant did not have the original requisite cenvatable invoices and has availed cenvat credit without receipt of documents and input services in contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, they have taken inadmissible cenvat credit and which has been utilized to discharge their service tax liability during the period October 2010 to March 2015. Consequently, the amount of cenvat credit used for payment of service tax is recoverable from them to the tune of ₹ 1,22,60,695/-. Further, it was also found that the appellant availed the cenvat credit on the invoices which has been in the name of CBSL Cable Network Ltd., Ludhiana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submission. 6. The facts in this case which are not in dispute that the appellant availed cenvat credit in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and in March 2010, the closing balance of cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account was ₹ 1,58,07,543/- and the same was opening balance on 01.04.2010. Further, the appellant started utilizing the said cenvat credit from October 2010 onwards. In that circumstances, the show cause notice issued on 21.04.2016 is highly time barred i.e. beyond the period of limitation of 5 years. Therefore, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. In that circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
