TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and CENVAT is not admissible in this grounds also. Here I cross-checked their payments and found they have paid amount for the inputs in question. It has been held by the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court that substantial benefit should not be denied on the ground of procedural lapses. Further, Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] where it was held that In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled for availing and utilizing CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Central Excise Act, 1944 and confirming the demand along with intereset and imposed a penalty of Rs.5,94,979/-. On appeal, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) observed as under and rejected the Appeal before him :- 5.1 I have carefully gone through the Grounds of Appeal against the backdrop of the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. I find that in respect of all the 9 (nine) disputed invoices, the consignments had been shown as consigned to either appellant s earlier office address or the present one. In none of the invoices, the address of the registered manufacturing unit had been mentioned. Further, during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged that invoices were not been consigned to the address (registered address) of the assessee and CENVAT is not admissible in this grounds also. Here I cross-checked their payments and found they have paid amount for the inputs in question. I find from the Board s Circular No.211/45/96-CX date 14.05.1996 that, read as- Similar problem (referring Circular No.179/13/96-CX dated 29.02.1996 which is about Bill of Entry) is also being faced in the case of goods procured from the domestic market where the Registered office/Head office procure the goods on behalf of the manufacturing unit and the said goods are involved in the name of the Registered office/head office instead of the manufacturing unit i.e., the actual user. Board instructe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
