2015 (5) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it on the bills of input service which is in the name of M/s. Hemraj Cable Network. The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original No. Raigad/DC(S.Tax)29/10-11 dated 29/12/2010 disallowed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 68,026/- and also imposed penalties. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the bill of input service issued by M/s. Zee Turner Ltd., the name of the service-recipient was wrongly mentioned as Hemraj Cable Network instead of appellant s name i.e. Shivraj Cable Network. He submits that it is only a typographical/clerical error on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... he affirmed that the payments of the said bills were settled by the appellant-firm i.e. Shivraj Cable Network. He also submits that the Revenue could not establish that there is another firm in the name of Hemraj Cable Network who received the services billed in the said six invoices. He placed reliance on the following judgment: i. Simplex Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -IV 2007 (81) RLT 331 (Bom.); ii. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom.) 4. He also referred to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and submit that even if the duty paying documents does not contain all the particulars, the Dy. Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. On a scrutiny of the records such as invoices, account ledger, bank statement, etc. it is clearly found that for all these six invoices the payment was made by the appellant i.e., M/s. Shivraj Cable Network to the service-provider M/s. Zee-Turner Ltd. through banking channel. It is also observed that the customer code i.e., 2318 which is provided to the appellant i.e. M/s. Shivraj Cable Network is correctly mentioned in all the documents such as invoices, and other documents. I have also considered the affidavit given by the partner of the appellant. From all these documents it becomes crystal clear that the name i.e., Hemraj Cable Network mentioned in the invoices is due to clerical error on the part of the service provider. All the doc....