2024 (8) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of  scrutiny of records of the appellant by CERA, it was  observed that the appellant had irregularly availed  CENVAT Credit during the period from 2006-07 to  2010-11. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing to  disallow CENVAT Credit amounting to  Rs.1,71,39,015/- along with interest and penalty inter  alia alleging that the appellant had availed CENVAT  Credit irregularly without the support of valid duty-paid documents and without submitting copies of  relevant invoices. 2.1. The said Notice was adjudicated by the  Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it on inputs and capital goods by an  ISD with effect from 01.04.2008 and therefore, the denial of credit to this ground is not tenable.   4.1. Regarding the balance portion of the said credit  which has been denied on various grounds in the  impugned order by invoking the extended period of  limitation, the appellant submits that being a public  sector undertaking, there can be no mala fide intention on their part in availment of irregular credit.  It is also submitted that intention to evade payment  of duty has not been established in this case and  hence, suppression of facts with intention to evade  payment of duty does not exist in this case.  Accordingly, the appellant submits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is no  dispute relating to receipt and utilization of service by  the appellant. Accordingly, they submit that the credit  availed by the appellant cannot be denied only on the  basis of procedural infirmities, if any. Thus, they  prayed for setting aside the denial of CENVAT Credit  amounting to Rs.21,68,423/- confirmed vide the impugned order. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing  for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the  impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal  documents. 8. We observe that the ld. adjudicating authority  has confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT Credit to  the appellant amounting to Rs.28,00,459/- and  Rs.21,68,423/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9.2. With regard to the denial of credit to the tune of  Rs.7,18,797/-, we observe that there were calculation  errors and the same has been disallowed on the  ground that no documents were submitted by the  appellant for availment of this credit. We observe that  there is no dispute with regard to receipt and  utilization of credit for the purpose of the taxable  services rendered by them. We find that the credit  availed by the appellant pertains to the period  2006-07 and the Notice has been issued for  disallowance of the credit in the year 2011, which is  clearly beyond the normal period of limitation. As  discussed in paragraph 9.1 of this order (supra),  suppression ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his regard by invoking the extended period  of limitation is not sustainable. 9.5. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant  is eligible for availment of the CENVAT Credit  amounting to Rs.28,00,459/-, which has been denied  by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned  order. Accordingly, the disallowance of credit in this  regard is not sustainable and hence, the same is set  aside. 10. Regarding disallowance of Cenvat credit of  Rs.21,68,423/-, we observe that the credit pertains to  'Rent-a-cab' operator service provided by different  service providers namely a) M/s Black Commando, b)  M/s Rana Security Services and c) M/s Kalka Security  Agency during the pe....