Tribunal remands matter for quantification, penalties set aside, appeal dismissed without evidence of mala-fide intent.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to quantify the demand falling within the limitation period. Penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeal was dismissed in the specified manner due to the absence of evidence showing mala-fide intent in credit availing, leading to the demand being barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on input services.
2. Denial of credit due to lack of relevant documents.
3. Disallowance of credit for specific amount.
4. Admissibility of credit based on eligible documents.
5. Applicability of limitation period for demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services under "Banking & Other Financial Services," availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on input services amounting to approximately Rs. 22.88 lakhs between October 2005 and September 2009.

2. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the credit due to their inability to produce relevant documents. While the appellant submitted Original Bills/Invoices totaling Rs. 19,24,579, a portion of Rs. 3,64,372 credit was disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority for lack of documentation, along with imposition of penalty.

3. The appellants contended that they availed credit based on received Bills/Invoices, some of which were misplaced and not produced during adjudication. They challenged the denial of credit and imposition of penalty, arguing that the demand was barred by limitation.

4. The lower authorities rejected the appellant's plea, emphasizing the necessity of eligible documents for credit availment. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission regarding limitation. The Show Cause Notice covered the period from October 2005 to September 2009, but lacked evidence of mala-fide intent in credit availing. Given the absence of proof, the demand was held to be barred by limitation.

5. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to quantify the demand falling within the limitation period. Additionally, penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, concluding the appeal with the dismissal of the case in the specified manner.

---