M/s. ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1416 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-1-2019
E/42348/2018 – Final Order No. 40048 / 2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri V. Srinivasan, Consultant
For the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
ORDER
The appellant is a manufacturer of paper and paper products and they have other manufacturing units at Badrachalam, Bollaram and Tribeni. The Head Office of the appellant at Secunderabad receives invoices towards input services and distributes the credit among the various manufacturing units. For this purpose, the Head Office is registered as an ISD. Du
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er. 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 now been rejected stating that necessary details are not available in the invoices. The value of services or the distribution of the services, registration number of service provider and address of service provider were not noted in cases of certain invoices. He adverted to proviso to Rule 9(2) of CCR, 2004 and argued that in case of such technical defects, the AC/ DC ought to have verified the accounts of the appellant and allowed credit. When there is no dispute with regard to the services availed or the tax paid, the department ought not t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
issions, 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. 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. I am of the view that the penalty imposed in this respect for wrongly availed credit is unjustified. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty only without disturbing the disallowance of credit or the interest thereon. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Ca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =