Link Autotech Pvt Ltd Versus CCT, CE & ST, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1376 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
E/30608/2018 – A/31485/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: P.V. Subba Rao.
1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MDAP2- 0273-17-18 dated 01.03.2018.
2. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of high security registration 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 Rs. 1,71,944/- along with interest and it was also proposed to impose penalty. This denial was on five grounds. The lower authority confirmed th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ioning the address of the appellant should not disentitle them to CENVAT Credit. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal.
(i) CCE Vapi Vs DNH Spinners [2009 (16) STR 418 (Tri-Ahm)]
(ii) Deloitte Haskins & Sales Vs CCE Thane [2015 (38) STR 1220 (Tri-Mumbai)]
(iii) Kemwell Biopharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore [2017 (47) STR 70 (Tri-Bangalore)]
(b) Denial of Rs. 29,766/- in respect of invoice issued by M/s Strategic International for providing business support services on the ground that the name of the appellant itself does not figure in the invoice. 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 Rs. 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 cr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
atsoever to show that this service was used by the appellant in their premises in Hyderabad. Insofar as the denial of Rs. 29,766/- provided by M/s Strategic International is concerned, it is his submission that the services in question do not pertain to the appellant at all and hence, credit cannot be allowed. Insofar as the denial of credit of Rs. 73,571/- is concerned, learned departmental representative states that the credit was not sought to be denied on the ground that they have availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 and hence, credit 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 Rs. 28,523/- in respect of the invoices which were in the name of corporat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The assesee has taken Cenvat Credit of Rs. 28,523/- on the said invoices as input services credit. Since the said invoices were raised on the address of the assesee located at New Delhi and that there is no document evidencing that the said office holds ISD registration and issued required invoices as prescribed there under, it has to be presumed that the services have not been received and used by the assesee in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. Thus, Cenvat Credit on the said invoices is not eligible to the assesee 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 Rs. 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 Lt
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
period from April, 2014 to October, 2014 in contravention of the provisions of the Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003″ should not be denied and recovered. This demand was confirmed in the Order-in-Original on this ground alone as below:
“11(3) Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on inputs/ input services during the SSI exemption during the period i.e., 2014-15:
On verification of the ER-1 returns filed by the assesee, they have started manufacturing activity from December, 2013 and they have availed SSI exemption for the year 2013-14 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 Rs. 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 Noti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =