TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling the same order in original. Therefore, the appeals are being disposed of together. 2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking engaged in production of coal on which it pays central excise duty. It also avails CENVAT credit on inputs and input services. A show cause notice [SCN] dated 22.02.2018 was issued to the appellant based on intelligence and information received by the preventive wing of the Commissionerate. This SCN sought to deny CENVAT credit of Rs. 94,89,903/- taken by the appellant on the strength of 13 invoices issued by M/s S. Kumar's Associates PE &AKM (JV) for rendering mining services. The appellant awarded a contract to the aforesaid JV for providing "mining services" and the JV issued the 13 disputed invoices ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was mentioned. Of these 13 invoices,7 had the service tax registration of its sub-contractor. In the remaining 6 invoices, the service tax registration number of the JV was mentioned but long before the service tax registration was even issued. It is the case of the department that since the service tax registration number is PAN based the JV could easily predict what number would be allotted to and it had entered that number in its invoices, although no such registration was even issued to the JV. 5. In view of above, the department felt that the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 94,89,903/- taken by the appellant during the period January, 2014 to September, 2015 was liable to be recovered under rule 14 of CCR along with interest and a penalty was li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the partners of the JV was mentioned. In the remaining 6 invoices registration number of JV was mentioned but on the date the invoices were issued the JV was not registered with the service tax department. Therefore, the original authority held that these invoices were not proper documents in terms of rule 9 of CCR and, therefore, ordered the CENAVT credit availed on them by the appellant to be recovered. The adjudicating authority ignored the fact that the tender was allotted to the JV on the basis of an application for service tax registration submitted by the JV; (iv) There is no collusion between the appellant and the JV and the appellant had paid service tax amount to JV; (v) The CBEC Circular No. 766/82/2003-CX dated 15.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so availed needs to be recovered with interest and penalties needs to be imposed; (c) Extended period was correctly invoked in this case because the appellant had deliberately evaded the duty of taking CENVAT credit on the strength of ineligible documents; (d) The appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order may be upheld. Findings 11. We have considered the submission on both sides and perused the records. 12. We first proceed to decide the question of limitation because the entire period of disputed demand was beyond the normal period of limitation. The reasons for availing the extended period of limitation indicated in the show cause notice is as follows: "9.3. In view of above, it appears that the Noticee No. 1 has failed to....