Tribunal allows Cenvat credit, limits demand, upholds interest, and sets aside penalties.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit despite missing name on invoices, holding the demand on limitation as time-barred due to regular compliance, upholding interest liability pending clarification on limitation, and setting aside imposed penalties citing technical issues and lack of mala fide intent.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit due to missing name on invoices, interest liability on differential duty, contestation of demand on limitation, imposition of penalties.

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles, faced a show cause notice denying Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,09,856 availed from M/s Abhay Kumar Awasthi for "Man Power Supply Service" due to missing name on invoices. The appellant argued that services were used and accounted for, with the name lapse being inadvertent. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting services were reflected in their accounts, entitling them to the credit.

Contestation of Demand on Limitation:
The appellant contested the demand on limitation, stating that all facts were in statutory records, indicating no mala fide intent. The Tribunal agreed, holding that since the appellant regularly filed returns and reflected the credit, the demand raised beyond the normal period was time-barred.

Interest Liability on Differential Duty:
Regarding interest liability on differential duty, the Tribunal referred to various decisions and upheld the payment requirement. However, they remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a decision on limitation due to the unavailability of the invoice date for the duty payment.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the appellant, citing the technical nature of the issues and lack of mala fide intent. They reasoned that since all aspects were known to the Revenue, penal provisions were not warranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit, holding the demand on limitation as time-barred, upholding interest liability pending a decision on limitation, and setting aside penalties imposed.

---