TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly, a show-cause notice dated 12.08.2013, invoking extended period, was issued to the appellants seeking demand of Rs.1,32,21,806/- under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; the demand was confirmed along with equal penalty vide impugned order dated 05.12.2014. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, assisted by Shri Aman Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the tender for the works was floated by BSNL for setting up and managing infrastructure sites for provision of Mobile and Telecom Services; the above services were received by BSNL and was distributed to the appellant; neither the impugned order not the show-cause notice dispute the admissibility of credit in question; credit is sought to be denied only on the basis of nonconformity of documents; the fact that the said service is an input service to the appellant and that the same has been availed is not disputed. She submits that CENVAT credit is a substantive benefit and as such, the same cannot be denied on the basis of procedural defects of minor nature; the credit distributed by M/s BSNL was along with a proper statement containing the details like supplier's invoice; name of the service provider; contract details; tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. - LTU 2023 (6) MI 646- CESTAT New Delhi. Bharat Electronics Ltd.- 2023 (9) TMI 870-CESTAT CHENNAI. Corporation Bank- 2018 (9) TMI 1725-CESTAT BANGALORE. Centre For Management Development 2018 (8) TMI 1687- CESTAT BANGALORE. 5. Shri Anurag Kumar, assisted by Shri Yashpal Singh, learned Authorized Representatives for the Department, takes us through the provisions of Rule 4A(1) and Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994; Notification No.27/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005; CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and particularly, Rule 9 ibid and Circular No.97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 and submits that neither the appellant nor the ISD Registrant have complied with the provisions of the Rules and therefore, CENVAT credit cannot be allowed on the plea that it is a mere procedural lapse; he submits that the case of M/s Mafatlal Industries (supra)relied upon by the appellant is not applicable as the facts of the case are different. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The brief issue involved in the case is that whether the appellants are eligible to avail credit when the document on which the credit is availed is alleged to be non-conforming to the provisions of Rule 9(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e credit availed by the branches. Therefore, only on the ground that proper documents under centralized registration was not issued for transfer of credit cannot be denied. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) wherein this Tribunal has considered identical issue as under :- "6. After hearing both the sides at length and going through the material available on record, we are of the view that appellant is a public sector undertaking Bank, no individual interest is involved. The main ground on which Cenvat credit was denied is lack of proper document for transferring credit lying at various branches to the zonal office upon approval of centralized registration. The fact remains that the documents were available in the books of account and as mentioned no individual interest is involved. Further, we find there is no statutory requirement of specified documents for transferring credit available with the multiple registrations to centralized registration. Hence, when there is no dispute regarding the credit originally availed by various branches, transfer of such credit cannot be denied. We are of the view that there is no distri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding denial of Cenvat credit on the invoices for transfer of Cenvat credit to the appellant on the basis of debit note which did not contain any detail as required under the statute. We have perused the debit notes which are annexed at pages 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the appeal memo. The said debit notes have been issued by M/s. SSKI Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. We find that the said M/s. SSKI has specifically indicated the rate of service tax paid by them, and service tax Registration No. in their invoice. It is also seen that M/s. SSKI has issued the invoices addressed to Head Office at Bombay of appellant. There is no dispute as to services rendered by SSKI to the appellant at Head Office. Appellant's head office has transferred the Cenvat credit of service tax paid by M/s. SSKI, as an input service distributor is also not disputed. 6. In our considered view, the head office of the appellant, being a registered ISD is eligible to distribute service tax credit to any of their units/factory. On a specific query from the Bench, learned departmental representative informed that there was no proposal or p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25.08.2010; Department sought certain clarifications vide letter dated 01.10.2010 and the appellants have submitted the same vide letter dated 22.12.2010.Thereafter, the Department did not conduct any enquiries for three long years and have issued a showcause notice dated 12.08.2013. The appellants having supplied the information sought by the Department vide letter dated 22.12.2010, cannot be alleged to have not supplied the requisite information. It was open to the Department to collect whatever information that was required to satisfy themselves before the issuance of show-cause notice. The Department requires to prove the inadmissibility of credit or any lapses on the part of the appellant in a positive proactive manner rather than on the averment that the appellants failed to supply the requisite information. However, as the admissibility of CENVAT credit not being in dispute, we are of the considered opinion that the same cannot be denied for procedural inadequacies, more so, when Department neither disputed the documents submitted by the appellants nor conducted any further verification. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue is barred by limitation. ....