TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg These are 18 appeals filed by different appellants arising out of common impugned order dated 11.5.2010 decided by the Commissioner (A) disposing of 23 appeals. The appellants have filed 18 appeals, and in respect of other five appeals, the assesse did not file the appeals as the amount was very less. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellants and confirmed the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue in all the 18 appeals is common, therefore all the 18 appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The details of the 18 appeals are given below: Sl. No. Name of the appellant OIO & date Period Amount confirmed 1 Sh. Sandeep Kant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Shah 126/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 13 Sh. Sujay Kantilal Shah 113/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.7,082/- Rs.5,518/- 14 Smt. Suvarna Mohanlal Vora 155/2009 dt.14.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.11,090/- Rs.23,636/- 15 Smt. Shruti Subodh Shah 128/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 16 Smt. Neeta Shantilal Shah 116/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 Rs.23,636/- Rs.18,391/- 17 Sh. Subodh Shantilal Shah 127/2009 dt.18.8.2009 10/2007 to 03/2008 & 04/2008 to 09/2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erted that the CENVAT credit has been claimed in accordance with the provisions of law. By Orders-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who vide the impugned order decided all the 23 appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, 18 appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name D.C. Shah and Others is used synonymously with that of the individual co-owners of the block and that Dev Chand House is their family name which they have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 (260) ELT 106 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that at the time of receipt of rent, each individual receives the rent from the separate rented person who are occupying separate portion of the building. The amount received as rent on which they have to pay service tax is shown separately and service tax is paid only on their individual receipt of rent after claiming SSI exemption. He also submitted that to claim SSI exemption and to pay the service tax on the balance amount, the appellants are showing their receipt of rent separately in their individual names but only at the time of availing CENVAT credit they receive one wholesale bill and avail credit proportionate to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order. It is necessary to reproduce the observation of the learned Commissioner (A) wherein he has observed as under: "Just because D.C. Shah & Co. signifies the 23 appellants, they cannot be allowed to avail the CENVAT credit individually on the basis of invoice which is in the name of D.C. Shah & Co. When all the appellants can get registered individually and separately and maintain all the records accordingly, what made them not to follow the same fashion in case of availment of CENVAT credit is not forthcoming. Under any circumstances an individual cannot avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices which is not in his name. The appellants are replying on cases wherein CENVAT credit was allowed to individual factory on ....