9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Technical Consultancy Service" which are covered under definition of "service" under provisions of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is not covered under services specified in "Negative List" under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Department alleged that the appellant has wrongly taken/availed Cenvat credit of Input Services amounting to Rs. 18,09,998/- (including Cesses) during the period from April 2017 to June, 2017 in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The same is proposed to be reversed along with proportionate interest as per Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1944 and the appropriate penalty as per Section 77(2) of the Act. The proposal was got confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 69/2020 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice were misprinted and hence do not match with the challan numbers available with the appellant. Despite the entire evidence produced by the appellant the same has been ignored and hence the demand confirmed is contrary to the said evidence and contrary to the directions of remand. The order is accordingly, prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the demand in question. Impressing upon no infirmity therein. The appeal is prayed to be dismissed. However, it is simultaneously acknowledged that there had occurred a typographical error in the AG Audit report/show cause notice vis-&ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that in the said order in appeal the demand for an amount of Rs. 12,82,601/- out of Rs. 18,09,098/- (as proposed in show cause notice) was set aside and the demand vis-à-vis the impugned amount of Rs. 5,26,497/- was confirmed on the ground that Challan No. 28069 dated 06.07.2017 and 29935 dated 06.07.2017 were not relevant. However, the matter was remanded back for fresh decision after verifying the alleged typographical error about both the challan numbers directing as follows: "6. ........However, keeping in view that the documents are impressed upon to have been annexed on record and to have been provided to both the Original Adjudicating Authorities. The typographic error in challan number and corelation of the compiled rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STER' mentioning availment of Credit of Rs. 461224/- (ST) on the strength of document No. 28069 dated 06.07.2017. I observe that the register is manually maintained and does not bear signature of authorized signatory of the appellant. In absence of certification by way of putting signatures with seal, the said register is merely a piece of paper, the authenticity of which cannot be verified. I find that the said Service Tax Register contains several other entries; the appellant has not submitted any document so as to corroborate these entries. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to accept the contention of typographical error especially when there is no such mistake in other challan numbers. Therefore, the claim of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month end. It appears that the appellate authority has overlooked the signatures in both the registers in discarding these registers as merely a piece of paper. The objection of the appellate authority that the registers were maintained manually is without any basis. He failed to appreciate that the Government has not mandated that records of Service Tax Payable Register and Service Tax Credit Register should be maintained by the taxpayer or on other electronic device. These records are being maintained by the appellant since beginning and no objection was raised by the Department or by the Audit Team. Hence the objection of the appellate authority to the effect that the registers are maintained manually by the appellant is without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the end of the department. Similar error has been committed with respect to challan filed with Entry No. 1669 dated 06.07.2017. Only one challan admittedly pertains to the said entry. Appellant has claimed it to be the Challan bearing No. 29935 dated 06.07.2017. For the same reason as above mentioning of 29936 as challan number is held to be nothing but a typographical error. 13. Since the partial amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,26,497/- has been rejected based on the above observed typographical error, we hold that Commissioner (Appeals), despite the specific directions to this effect in the remand order, has failed to comply with the directions of the order of this Tribunal. The findings rejecting the partial claim of the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
