TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax, Bhubaneswar-II disallowing Cenvat Credit to the tune of Rs.4,88,11,814/- said to be wrongly taken and utilized by the noticee and ordered for recovery along with interest as applicable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to section 73(1) and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudication order also seeks to impose equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules (supra) read with section 78 of the Finance Act. 2. None is present on behalf of the appellant, despite issuance of notice. As the appeal pertains to the year 2011, we have taken up the appeal for disposal with the help of the Ld.AR for the department. 3. The Ld.AR for the department points out that the noticee had availed service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 12.04.2009 i.e. before taking registration certificate. As per Rule 9 of the CCR, a manufacturer of excisable goods is allowed to take Cenvat Credit only against an invoice, Bill or Challan issued by an Input Service Distributor under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1994. Thus, the said documents were not valid documents for the purpose of availing Cenvat credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 2(m) of the CCR read with Rule 4A(2) of the Rules and Rule 3(1) of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005 and therefore the charge of suppression was also made out, as the aforesaid information was not pointed out in the ER-1 returns. 4. We note that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the aforesaid deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spose of the cases on similar questions of law or identical case on facts pending with the department. In the said circular, the Board has accepted the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise vs Dashion Ltd [2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the department's appeal holding that non-registration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity for which substantial benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied when all the necessary records have been maintained by the respondent. 18. In the decisions relied upon by the Appellant cited above, it has been held that mere procedural infractions, technicalities and documentary infirmities cannot be the ground for denial....