2014 (12) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The wrong availment has been concluded on the ground that the documents were either not available or did not contain necessary details. In the first case, the demand for CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,16,67,582/- has been confirmed on the ground that in the invoices, the addresses of the service providers were not mentioned, the learned counsel fairly agrees that as per the provisions of Rule 9(2) of CCR 2004, essential details which an invoice should have, includes the address of the service provider. In this case there is no allegation that appellant had not received the input services; had not paid the service tax; the service provider had not paid the service tax or the input services were not utilized by the appellants. It was submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned counsel submitted that appellants have produced proof to show that other branch offices/officers have not taken credit. Learned counsel submits that the matter may be remanded for consideration of the submissions regarding certificates issued by other branches and the admissibility of credit. Learned A.R. has no objection to this proposal. 4. CENVAT credit of Rs. 21,27,676/- has been denied on the ground that the appellants failed to produce relevant invoices in respect of credit taken. The learned counsel fairly agrees that at that time, the appellants did not have the documents. If an opportunity is given, they are in a position to produce the documents. Learned A.R. fairly agrees that the matter can be remanded for verifying the d....