2019 (2) TMI 486 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – service rendered but service tax not paid – contravention of Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Undisputedly, the appellant had received services from M/s DBC Port Logistics Ltd. during the relevant period 2014-15. Admittedly against the total amount raised in the invoices for providing input services to the appellant, there was short payment of ₹ 1,23,08,514/- till 31.3.2015. Also it is accepted by the appellant that even though the amount was not paid by the appellant for more than 90 days, but they availed CENVAT Credit of ₹ 15,21,332/- attributable to the unpaid amount.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/88198/2018 – A/85012/2019 – Dated:- 4-1-2019 – DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri H.P. Kanade, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.K. Hattangadi, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. IM/CGST A-I/
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate Shri H.P. Kanade for the appellant submits that the appellant during the relevant period received services from one M.s DBC Port Logistic Ltd., who raised invoices for a total amount of ₹ 4,41,81,109/-, whereas the appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 3,18,72,595/- leaving short payment of ₹ 1,23,08,514/-. The proportionate credit involved on unpaid amount was ₹ 15,21,332/-. Attributing reasons for said non-payment, he has submitted that there was initially some dispute relating to deficiency in service, however, the entire outstanding amount was later paid to the said service provider by raising credit note in their favour on 01.01.2016. He has submitted that the appellant had discharged interest of ₹ 2,30,325/- on the CENVAT Credit amount of ₹ 15,21,332/- availed for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015. In support, he has placed a Chartered Accountant's certificate indicating the payment of outstanding du
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s accepted by the appellant that even though the amount was not paid by the appellant for more than 90 days, but they availed CENVAT Credit of ₹ 15,21,332/- attributable to the unpaid amount. Forwarding reasons for said non-payment, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that it was due to the dispute between the appellant and the service provider relating to deficiency in service. It is his contention that the entire amount of ₹ 1,23,08,54/- was later paid on 01.01.2016. Further, he submits that they have discharged interest for the period for which the said amount of credit was availed by them. Also, the aforesaid fact of payment of outstanding amount is supported by Chartered Accountant's certificate and not disputed by Revenue. In these circumstances, following the precedent laid down in the judgments cited above, I do not find merit in the impugned order confirming the recovery of the credit and imposition of penalty. Consequently, the impugned order
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =