2025 (8) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant received various services and invoices raised by the supplier of services. Though majority services were received before April 2011, credit was taken by the Appellant during the period April 2011 to March 2012. During the course of central excise audit, the Appellant was not able to locate invoices of service providers involving credit of Rs. 12,33,115/-. This was due to the fact that certain invoices were not traceable on account of the unit being shifted to Vashivali from Mulund. Similarly, when the Range Office asked for the invoices, they had not been traced. However, later on invoices involving Service Tax credit of Rs. 10,79,320/- were traced and these were produced before the Adjudicating Authority and also verified by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n verified. However, credit was denied on the ground that the services are not in the nature of input services as defined under Rule 2(1) of the Credit Rules. Penalty was also imposed. 5. The Appellant preferred an appeal to the CCE (Appeals) who vide the Order-In-Appeal dated 08/08/2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order No.A/91828/2017 dated November 24, 2017 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority with specific direction to exclude the demand to the extent it overlaps with the demand raised in another proceedings, leaving all issues open. 6. The Appellant received the Order-In-Original dated March 26, 2021 which partially c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal records. 10. I find from the records that this is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. For the Financial Year 2011-12 similar proceedings were initiated vide SCN dated 18.02.2015 for denial of CENVAT credit on input services amounting to Rs.48,07,923/-. The Adjudicating Authority vide the Order-In- Original dated 28.10.2015 confirmed the demand as proposed in the SCN and also imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal, before the First Appellate Authority the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order-In-Appeal dated 29.04.2016 set aside the Order-In-Original and allowed 95% of the credit on principal but remanded for verification of the invoices. However, he set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. Revenue was ....