TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gencies. As the invoices raised by the services providers were either in the name of CHA, or the original importer a/c appellant. Even though the said amounts were reimbursed by the appellant by reflecting the same in their accounts revenue sought to deny the credit. Accordingly show cause notice was issued to appellant alleging as under:- "that on scrutiny of documents evidencing payment of service tax relating to input services submitted by the appellant, it came to notice that the appellant has availed Cenvat Credit on the Strength of debit notes as shown in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice. Since the debit notes are not the proper documents for availing Cenvat Credit in terms of rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as such ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial relief and denied the credit of Rs. 2,98,177/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000. The said denial was on the ground that service tax registration No. is not mentioned in invoices/bills and the documents are not in the name of the appellant. 3. The appellant have submitted the following pleas. (1) Facts not disputed by A.C. or CCE(A) at any stage:- (i) The Appellant has purchased the goods on high Sea Sales basis. (ii) The expenses incurred and Service Tax paid are in connection with the impugned goods. (iii) The Appellant had borne the expenses for the services availed in connection with the import and service tax has been borne by the Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon the following decision. 1. UNION OF INDIA v. MARMAGOA STEEL LTD. [2008 (229) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] 2. VIMAL ENTERPRISE v.v. UNION OF INDIA [2006 (195) E.L.T. 267 (Guj.)] 3. BANDO INDIA (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2010 (262) E.L.T. 1103 (Tri.-Del.)] 4. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI v. JINDAL PHOTO LTD. [2009 (240) E.L.T. 728 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] 5. SECURE METERS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II 2010 (18) STR 490 (Tri.-Del) . 6. XEROX MODICORP LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [2005 (192) E.L.T.878 (Tri.-Del.)] 5. Learned Advocate also relied upon the Tribunal decision in their own cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant shall file an affidavit to the effect that the goods involved in High Sea Sales followed by Bill of Entry in the name of the appellant shall not be subjected to repeated claim of Cenvat Credit by different hands i.e. one in the hands of appellant and other in the hands of others making abuse of those documents. The appellant shall file affidavit before the Adjudication Authority annexing respective bills of entry and also the list of parties from whom the goods were purchased in High Sea Sales and those documents to form an integral part of affidavit duly attested by the authority before whom the affidavit is sworn. If such an affidavit is filed within one month of receipt of this order, the authority shall drop the demand. Appeal is ....