TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit, but also the imposition of penalties in question, it is held that Section 9D is to be construed strictly. It is already observed to be mandatory provisions, resultantly, it is held that the statements as were recorded during investigation are not admissible into evidence. Coming to the remaining evidence on record, we observe that to prove its case, the appellant has provided thirteen work orders as were issued to M/s SVPL to seek to receive such services from M/s SVPL as are mentioned in those work orders. The rate of consideration for receiving said services is also mentioned against each work order, a tabulated description of these work orders is also recorded in the Order-in-Original. It is appellant s case that M/s SVPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HON BLE DR.RACHNA GUPTA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MRS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Mr. Jitin Singhal , Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rakesh Kumar , Authorized Representative for the respondent ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA The present is an appeal as filed to assail the order-in-appeal bearing No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-451-17-18 dated 16.02.2016. 2. The facts relevant for the present adjudication, in brief, are as follows:- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, etc. and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit Scheme in respect of invoices/capital goods/input services used in the aforesaid manufacture in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004). The Department r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork nor provide any service whatsoever to the appellant except had accommodated for providing an entry for the same that the appellant was proposed to not to be eligible for availing cenvat credit of Rs. 1,82,61,900/- the same was proposed to be reversed vide show cause notice No. 20951 dated 22.12.2015 alongwith the interest and the appropriate penalties. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 38/JC/CE/RGH/2017 dated 29.05.2017. The Appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the Order-in-Appeal, the one which has been challenged in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Department. 4. Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax collected by him from the appellant, the entitlement of appellant to avail ITC on the amount of service tax paid alongwith the value of service, cannot be denied. The order under challenge, is therefore, prayed to be set-aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. While rebutting the submissions, the Learned Authorized Representative has relied upon the findings in the order under challenge. It is mentioned that all the grounds of defense taken by the appellant have specifically been dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals) with the respective individual findings in Para 7 of the order under challenge, there is no infirmity in those findings, appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall be relevant for the purposes of proving truth of the facts which it contains only when it fulfills the conditions prescribed in clause (a) or as the case may be, under clause (b) of the said section. While clause (a) deals with certain contingencies enumerated therein, clause (b) provides that statement made and signed would be relevant for the purposes of proving the truth of the facts contained in that statement only when the person whom made the statement is examined as witness before the Court. A conjoint reading of the provisions therefore reveals that a statement made and signed by a person before the Investigation Officer during the course of any inquiry or proceedings under the Act shall be relevant for the purposes of provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. 10. Coming to the remaining evidence on record, we observe that to prove its case, the appellant has provided thirteen work orders as were issued to M/s SVPL to seek to receive such services from M/s SVPL as are mentioned in those work orders. The rate of consideration for receiving said services is also mentioned against each work order, a tabulated description of these work orders is also recorded in the Order-in-Original. It is appellant s case that M/s SVPL has executed the aforesaid work orders during the period from December 2010 to March 2011 and there upon has raised thirteen invoices on the appellant on different dates for a total value of Rs. 19,55,61,900/- including the service tax of Rs. 1,82,61,900/- (the amount in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
