TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority has recorded that since the record was voluminous that the appellant was required to submit month-wise of Cenvat credit availed details from October, 2014 to June 2017 ( the period in question) pointing out the specific documents for the respective entry with respect to the amount in question. The said detail was also provided by the appellant to the Adjudicating Authority. Not only this, those documents were also got checked and verified by the Jurisdictional RO. The demand has been confirmed based on the verification report of the said Jurisdictional RO. He has reported that the documents were not prescribed in terms of provision of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, 10% of the amount confirmed has to be deposited in total till filing the appeal before this Tribunal. That is to say amount equal to 7.5% of the demand confirmed is to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and remaining 2.5% of the demand confirmed is to be deposited prior to filing the appeal before this Tribunal. As already held above entire 10% of the amount of duty confirmed against the appellant stands already deposited and also that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeal on merits as well, there remains no need of remanding back the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) are no more sustainable on the preliminary issue of lack of mandatory pre-deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals). 2. The facts, in brief, relevant for the adjudication are that the appellant is engaged in rendering taxable service as that of Courier Agent Service and Business Auxiliary Service. During the audit they were observed to have availed and utilised the Cenvat credit of service tax without any valid documents resulting into issue of Show Cause Notice No. 02/2018-18/1119 dated 18.10.2019 proposing the recovery of wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat credit of Rs.1,81,911/- along with proportionate interest and appropriate penalty. The said proposal has initially been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 64/2020 dated 08.02.2021. The appeal thereof has been dismissed vide the order under challenge. 3. I have heard Shri Tej Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for an amount of Rs.1,81,911/- was been confirmed alleging the said amount to have been wrongly availed and utilised Cenvat Credit for the reason that the same has not been availed on the valid documents. At this stage, Order-in-Original is perused. From paragraph 12 thereof it is abundantly clear that duly verified copies of payment vouchers and official bills generated for payment of telephonic bills and RSRTC subsidy bill for the period in question were duly provided by the appellant to the Adjudicating Authority. The authority has also acknowledged the same. The Original Authority has recorded that since the record was voluminous that the appellant was required to submit month-wise of Cenvat credit availed details from October, 2014 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation itself. Otherwise also proviso to Rule 9 shows that if the documents as submitted by the appellants contain all such particulars as are mentioned in the invoices or payment received, then also the Cenvat credit is to be allowed. The Adjudicating authority below has miserably failed to consider the said proviso. To my opinion, documents having all requisite particulars were duly been given to the Original Adjudicating Authority itself. The Authority was rather facilitated by the Counsel with the precise information out of the voluminous record with respect to the period in question. Denying the Cenvat credit based on such documents is therefore, held to be wrong and unreasonable. 9. Coming to the issue of non deposit of mandatory a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned that assessee has not disclosed the facts regarding the nature of input service and the place of receipt of such input service on which the Cenvat Credit of service tax was availed. The Original Adjudicating Authority has also justified the invocation of extended period of limitation only on the ground that appellant had never disclosed the wrong availment of Cenvat Credit availed on the basis of telephone and RSRTC bills. As already been observed that the appellants had provided all the requisite documents before the Departmental Authorities there remains no evidence to prove the alleged suppression. It is not the case of the department that service tax was not paid by the appellants. Mere allegation of documents to be improper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
