2019 (2) TMI 1416 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – distribution of credit by the Head Office – Head Office is registered as an ISD – credit denied on the ground that – Held that:- The rejection of credit is only for the reason of technical defects in the invoices. There is no dispute with regard to the services consumed – The argument of the ld. consultant that as per proviso to Rule 9(2), the AC / DC ought to have verified the accounts of the assessee when there are technical defects in the invoices is correct.
–
The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty only without disturbing the disallowance of credit or the interest thereon – appeal allowed in part.
– E/42348/2018 – Final Order No. 40048 /
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
is ₹ 31,35,652/- distributed through 7185 entries was ineligible. Show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow the credit in respect on this amount. After due process of law, the original authority allowed credit of ₹ 28,36,402/-. In Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same and rejected the balance credit of ₹ 2,99,250/- distributed by the ISD under 50 ISD invoices. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri V. Srinivasan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the rejection of credit is only on the ground of technical defects in the invoices. The audit team had scrutinized almost 30,000 entries and out of these only 50 ISD invoices have no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed equal penalty under section 11AC r/w Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. He argued that since the disallowance is only due to technical defects of the document, the appellant should not be burdened with penalty. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the credit has been rightly disallowed for the reason that the documents are not proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On going through the records and after hearing the submissions, it is brought out that the rejection of credit is only for the reason of technical defects in the invoices. There is no dispute with regard to the services consumed. The argument of the ld. consultan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =