2018 (11) TMI 1376 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – denial on the ground that the duty involved is not indicated in the relevant invoices, also on the ground that the name of the appellant itself does not figure in the invoice – credit of input services where SSI benefit availed – Held that:- Unless there is evidence on record that the input services corresponding to the disputed invoices (raised not in the name of the appellant but in the name of the appellant’s corporate office or in the name of some other entity) are used by the appellant, they cannot claim CENVAT credit. It is different from a case where the use of inputs/ input services is not in dispute and only the invoice indicates a wrong address but such is not the case.
–
Denial of credit of ₹ 73,571/- on input services – contravention of the provisions of the Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 – Held that:- As far as the exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE is concerned, Para 2 (iii) clearly lays dow
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
plates for vehicles registered under the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. An audit was conducted at the premises of the appellant in period April, 2012 to March, 2016 and a show cause notice dated 23.05.2017 was issued to the appellant for recovery of credit of ₹ 1,71,944/- along with interest and it was also proposed to impose penalty. This denial was on five grounds. The lower authority confirmed the demands and interest and imposed penalty. On appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the credit on one ground amounting to ₹ 20,400/- which was denied by the lower authority on the ground that the duty involved is not indicated in the relevant invoices. The department has not appealed against this credit allowed by the first appellate authority and hence this issue has reached finality. Learned counsel submits that they are not contesting denial on another ground, viz., the denial of ₹ 19,684/- on account of trading activity although they had initially cont
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e. Learned counsel submits that they have received these services and not mentioning the name of the recipient in the invoice is a technical lapse for which they should not be denied CENVAT Credit. (c) Denial of ₹ 73,571/- on input services during the availment of SSI benefit. The appellant submits that they had availed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 08/20013 which provides for exemption based on the value of credit on the condition that they do not avail CENVAT Credit of duty on inputs. In this case the credit was taken as input services and not on inputs. He asserts that there is nothing in the Notification No. 08/20013 which will disentitle them to the benefit of the credit of input services. He prayed that their appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside to the extent credit by them. 3. Learned departmental representative submits that insofar as the denial of credit of ₹ 28,523/- is concerned, it is wrong to say that they have been denied c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
it on input services is not available. He asserts that the credit was sought to be denied in terms of the transitional provisions under Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. He, therefore, asserts that CENVAT Credit is not admissible to the appellant. 4. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the arguments on both sides. In so far as the credit of ₹ 28,523/- in respect of the invoices which were in the name of corporate office of the appellant and the credit of ₹ 29,766/- which was not in the name of the appellant at all are concerned, it is the argument of the learned counsel that these are technical lapses and they should not be denied credit of input services on that ground. Learned departmental representative draws my attention to the relevant portions of the Order-in-Original which are as follows. 11(1)(a) Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit on input services addressed to another unit during the period 2014-15 & 2015-16: I have perused the relevant i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ssesee under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (b) In respect of Invoice dt.03.07.2015 issued by M/s Strategic International, 14-2-340, Pan Mandi, Agapura, Hyderabad pertaining to claiming of charges for Business Support services involving input service credit of ₹ 29,766/-, it is observed that the invoice is in the name of M/s Link Point Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., thus, it does not pertain to the services provided to M/s Link Autotech Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad. Hence, credit cannot be allowed on the said invoice under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. I find strong force in the argument of the learned departmental representative that unless there is evidence on record that the input services corresponding to the disputed invoices (raised not in the name of the appellant but in the name of the appellant s corporate office or in the name of some other entity) are used by the appellant, they cannot claim CENVAT credit. It is different from a case where the use of inpu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
13-14 and also during the year 2014-15. As per the said records, it was observed that they came out of the SSI exemption in the month of October, 2014, but availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 73,571/- during the said period. I find that the assesee has availed SSI exemption from April, 2014 to September, 2014 under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and also availed Cenvat credit during the said period, which is gross violation of the provisions of Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. As per condition No.2(1) of the Notification, a manufacturer has the option not to avail the exemption contained in this notification and instead pay the normal rate of duty on the goods cleared by him. Such option shall be exercised before effecting his first clearances at the normal rate of duty. Such option shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. Thus, the assesee shall exercise his option before effecting his first clearance, whereas in the instant case, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =