TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order in appeal No.BC/277/SURAT-II/2011, dt.13.10.11. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant wrongly availed the Service Tax Credit of Rs.8,31,349/- + Cess Rs.16,610/- total of Rs.8,47,959/-, on the basis of bills which were in the name of their Head Office who could pass on the Service Tax Credit by registering itself as an input....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r head office. It is his submission that there is also no dispute as to discharge of service tax by the service provider. He would submit that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this bench in the case of Parekh Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (25) STR 46 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and produce the copy of the said order. 5. Ld. Commissioner (A.R.) reiterates the findings of the lower authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) I may with respect reproduce the ratio. "6. After hearing both sides, I find that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on the sole allegation that the invoices are in the name of head office, who was not registered as ISD and as such availment of credit on the basis of the same, was not justified. There is no allegation in the said Show Cause Notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... omissions, which are totally curable defects and are condonable. As such, I find that the denial on the sole ground of invoices being in the name of head office, is not justified. 7. I also find the demand to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the Show Cause Notice stands issued beyond the normal period of limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) has himself observed that there is no co....