2018 (10) TMI 1554 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – denial on the ground that the service tax registration number of vendor was not mentioned in its input invoices – case of appellant is that since the vendor was registered under Service Tax laws, therefore inadvertent error on the invoices should not be used as a basis to deny the CENVAT credit – Held that:- The vendor applied for service tax registration number on 17.10.2001 and the same was allowed to the vendor on 29.04.2005 i.e. much before the vendor issued invoices to the Appellant for the period in question – It is not the case of Revenue that the vendor has not paid the Service Tax which was collected by him from the Appellant, who have utilised their services. CENVAT credit is being denied to the Appellant only on the ground that the invoices were not having the registration number of the service provider.
–
There is no allegation or finding to the effect that the input services were not received by the Appellant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
P-94/2017-18. In the present case CENVAT credit of ₹ 81,854/- has been denied to the Appellant on the ground that the service tax registration number of vendor was not mentioned in its input invoices. It is an admitted fact that as soon as the Audit raised the objection, on 10.05.2010 itself the Appellant submitted the service tax registration of the vendor along with invoices and prayed that since the vendor was registered under Service Tax laws, therefore inadvertent error on the invoices should not be used as a basis to deny the CENVAT credit. But still, the Revenue rejected the CENVAT credit and issued a show-cause notice dated 26.02.2012 after invoking the extended period of limitation as to why:- (i) CENVAT credit of ₹ 81,854/- (Rupees eighty one thousand eight hundred and fifty four only) taken/utilised in respect of invoices mentioned in Para (3) above should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with the provi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d in this appeal is whether the Appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rules 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by availing CENVAT credit on the input invoices which did not bear service tax registration of the vendor. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the vendor applied for service tax registration number on 17.10.2001 and the same was allowed to the vendor on 29.04.2005 i.e. much before the vendor issued invoices to the Appellant for the period in question. It is not the case of Revenue that the vendor has not paid the Service Tax which was collected by him from the Appellant, who have utilised their services. CENVAT credit is being denied to the Appellant only on the ground that the invoices were not having the registration number of the service provider. There is no allegation or finding to the effect that the input services were not received by the Appellant or that the said services were not covered under the scope of eli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =