TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Order-in-Original and has held that the appellant has wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.2,78,521/-. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing restaurant services and is registered with the service tax department under Finance Act. During the audit for the period April 2015 to June 2017, it was found by the department that the appellant has availed the ineligible credit. The appellant filed reply to the audit objection but the department, being not agreed with the reply, issued a show cause notice dated 20.01.2020 to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs.2,78,521/- pertaining to three months namely November 2016, March 2017 & April 2017, alongwith interest and also proposed pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf. He further submits that the learned Deputy Commissioner after fully satisfied with the documents provided by the appellant dropped the demand initiated in the show cause notice by considering the provisions of Credit Rules and the documents produced. 4.3 He further submits that it is not disputed that the inputs/capital goods/input services have been received at the appellant's premises in Chandigarh and the same have been utilized in the restaurant established by the appellant in Chandigarh. He further submits that in bills of entry, the name of head office, which is in Bangalore, is mentioned and the name of branch office, which is in Chandigarh, is also mentioned. Bill of lading also clearly shows that the capital goods were purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Parekh Plast India Private Limited vs. CCE, Vapi - 2011-VIL-293-CESTAT-AHM-ST M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. CCE, Salem - 2009 (14) STR 699 (Tri. Chennai) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the appellant has not produced required documents as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Credit Rules for availing the Cenvat Credit. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that at the time of issuance of show cause notice, the appellant could not produced all the documents to satisfy that they have correctly availed the Cenvat Credit on the capital goods, but while fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because the bill of entry is in the name of head office. 9. Further, I find that in the Tribunal in the case of M/s Parekh Plast (India) Private Limited (supra), has observed as under: "The tribunal's decision relied upon by ld. Advocate is clearly to the effect that the invoices, even in the name of head office, are eligible documents for the purpose of credit. The said defects are omissions, which are totally curable defects and are condonable. As such, I find that the denial on the sole ground of invoices being in the name of head office, is not justified." 10. Further, I find that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on procedural infirmities as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ....