2017 (4) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 it was observed that appellants have availed input service tax credit of Rs. 8,50,952/- on the basis of inter office memos issued by the Head Office at Hyderabad. It was also observed that the head office had not taken ISD registration. A Show Cause Notice was issued raising the above two allegations and after due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy argued both on merits as well as on the ground of the limitation. He submitted that the Head office at Hyderabad has units at different places. The service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R 77 (Tri. Del)] and argued that in the said judgment it was held that even though debit notes has not been specified in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 the same was considered to be valid documents for availing credit. On this point the judgment in the case of Modern Petrofils Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (20) S.T.R. 627 (Tri.- Ahmd.)] was relied by the Ld. Counsel. Again, that the show cause notice is issued relying upon the ER-1 Returns and credit statements filed by the appellant. The Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2012 covering the period April 2008 to December 2010 has been issued invoking extended period alleging suppression of facts. That there is no evidence to establish that appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al in the case of Shree Cements Ltd., (supra) is note worthy. The same is reproduced as below: Substance is more important than the format and the doctrine of substance over format is sanction of Rule 9 (1) (f) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, when Revenue did not find that the service tax realized through debit note has not gone into treasury, there is no scope to deny relief to the appellant. Added to this, the service provider has realized certain reimbursement of expenses while providing consultancy service in terms of debit note appearing at pages 51 to 55 of appeal folder. Therefore, once assessable value of service provider is intended to include even the reimbursement of expenses, the appellant cannot be denied be....