TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant for the purpose are as follows: 1.1 M/s Rohit Surfactants Private Limited [the appellant] (Delhi unit) were registered with Central Excise department for manufacturing detergent cake and detergent powder. On 18.12.2009, the appellant surrendered their registration certificate with Assistant Commissioner, New Delhi as the appellant had shifted their manufacturing unit to Sahibabad (UP). Vide their application dated 08.09.2010 to Assistant Commissioner, Delhi only, the appellant requested to allow them to transfer the accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 40,15,820/- to their another unit in Sahibabad. It was submitted that the appellant had entirely closed their factory in New Delhi and have vacated the premises leaving no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi unit. The appeal against the said order was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2012 dated 31.01.2013. In an appeal against this order-in-appeal, before this Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority vide Final Order No. A/71813/2017 dated 01.12.2017 with the directions to verify as to whether the credit was otherwise available to the assessee prior to their registration and belongs to the receipt of goods or services availed by the assesee prior to surrender of their registration. 1.4 Pursuant to the said directions of remand that the Order-in-Original bearing No. 03/2023 dated 21.02.2023 was passed. The original adjudicating authority had dealt with all the six invoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those services in and in relation to manufacture of excisable goods. 3.1 Learned counsel further impressed upon that the record of appellant were got audited up to March 2012. The department never pointed out that credit was not admissible on the services as that of advertising agency service, telephone and pager services and banking and other financial services, Chartered Accountant service, consulting services, custom house agent services, legal and professional services, GTA service and travel agent services. It is submitted that these services were received and utilized much before surrender of registration except that the credit was distributed by ICD afterwards. Hence Cenvat credit on the services has wrongly been denied. With the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should not be denied on such hyper technical ground. It is also held that the substantive benefit should not be denied on the ground of procedural and technical violation, if the assessee is otherwise entitled to the same. Based on the said observations, this Tribunal remanded the matter back directing the original adjudicating authority to check as to whether the credit in question (Rs. 26,11,389/-) belongs to the receipt of the goods or to the services availed by the assessee (appellant) prior to the surrender of their registration to ensure as to whether the said credit was otherwise available to the assessee. 6. The original adjudicating authority vide order dated 21.02.2023 had discussed all the invoices and the available evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns showing payment of service tax by the appellant are also placed on record. Perusing those documents, it is observed that there is nothing in those documents to relate to the aforesaid six invoices. Service wise details are of the year 2006-07 whereas six of the invoices are of the year 2010. No particulars of these documents match. Seen from the e-challans, the payments were made in December 2009 or February 2010 with no mention of any of the said six invoices or about the nature of service for which those payments were made. In view of these observations, it is held that the documents are highly insufficient to show that the input services as are mentioned in the six invoices of the year 2010 were the services which were received by the....