AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant by way of issue of summons. 1.2. Scrutiny of the documents recovered during the investigations revealed the following: * M/s Computer Point Ltd have availed input tax credit mainly on the basis of invoices issued by M/s Jayshree Trading Co (Reg No.AAACC2187PSD002) & amp; M/s Shree Shyam Impex (Reg No.- BAIPS1968LSD001). * M/s Jayshree Trading Co & M/s Shree Shyam Impex are registered with the Service Tax-I Commissionerate (erstwhile ST Divn-1) * On verification from erstwhile Service Tax Division-I, it was noticed that both M/s Jayshree Trading Co & M/s Shree Shyam Impex have neither submitted ST-3 returns nor paid any service tax during the period 2010-11 to 2012-13. * Search of the premises at 36, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata 700 006, of M/s Jayshree Trading Co. revealed that there was no such firm in the name & style of M/s Jayshree Trading Co existed in that address. The caretaker, Shri Prithvi Nath Singh and Mr. Jai Kishan Saraf, Secretary, Akash Ganga Flat Owner's Association of 36, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata 700 006 have confirmed the non-existence of any firm in the name of M/s Jayshree Trading Co, in the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmr/ST-II.Kol/2016-17 dated 27.02.2017, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has ordered for disallowance of the irregularly availed Cenvat credit on the basis of fake documents. The impugned order also demanded interest and imposed equal amount of the irregular credit availed as penalty under section 78 of the Finance act, 1994. Rs.70,500/- Late fee has also been confirmed under Rule 7C read with section 70(1) of the Finance Act. Aggrieved against the disallowance of the credit along with interest and imposition of penalties, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The Appellant submits that they have received input services from M/s. Jayshree Trading Co. and M/s. Shree Shyam Impex. On the basis of the invoices raised by these parties, they have availed credit to the tune of Rs. 2,18,59,482/-. However, the department alleges that there was no existence of the aforesaid two service providers at the declared addresses during the course of investigation. It has also been alleged that the said service providers have neither submitted any ST-3 Returns nor paid any service tax for the period in dispute. Therefore, the impugned order held that the documents issued by those entities cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are not available in the registered premised later, the appellant has relied on the following decisions: (i) COMMR. OF C.EX. & amp; CGST, UDAIPUR Vs PREMJAIN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD. 2022 (381) E.L.T. 533 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., BANGALORE-I Vs BHUWALKA ALLOYS PVT. LTD. 2012 (281) E.L.T. 213 (Kar.) [12-04-2011] (iii) COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., PONDICHERRY Versus SPICPHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION 2006 (199) E.L.T. 686 (Tri.-Chennai) 2.4. The appellant has contested the demands confirmed in the impugned order on the ground of limitation also. The appellant submits that the SCN has been issued after more than 3 years of conduct of Enquiry by the officers of the Service Tax II Commissionerate. In this regard, the appellant submits that the entire demand has been calculated on the basis of documents submitted by them. They have declared all the figures in the ST-3 returns and same has been taken by the department for raising and confirming the demand. Thus, the appellant submits that extended period of limitation cannot be invokable in this case as per section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994. 3. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supply of man power for the purpose of development of software required for them, during the period October 2010 to March 2013 and the service providers were in existence at that time. The service providers were registered with the department and their service tax registration was active in the departmental portals during the period when the input services were received by the appellant. Later, if the officers found that they were not available in their registered addresses, the appellant cannot held responsible. Just because the service providers were not available in the addresses, it cannot be alleged that the appellant have not received the services at all from the input service providers. It is on record that the service providers have raised the invoices including service tax and the appellant have paid the gross amount inclusive of service tax to the service providers through banking channels. Accordingly, we observe that the cenvat credit of Rs.2,18,59,482/- availed by the appellant cannot be considered as irregular availment of credit, as the service recipient has complied with the mandatory provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Thus, we observe that the Cenvat credit le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils provided by M/s. Tirupati Associates, Jaipur to them without ensuring whether goods were transported or not. Thus, the same were not genuine and were prepared only to help in availing the Cenvat credit. 15. It has also been established that no vehicle mentioned in the invoices was used for the transportation of the goods and these vehicles were not engaged for the transportation of goods from the premises of supplier to the premises of assessee located in Kota. 16. The manufacture/dealers also deposed that they had issued only the invoices based on invoices which were received by them from the manufacturer/main dealer and thus the assessee had not received any input along-with the invoices and only invoices were procured in collusion with the dealers. 17. Further, the consignments shown to have been transported in trucks were actually never transported and the records establish that only paper transactions were made with commission amount exchanging hands. 18. Thus, it is established that the manufacturer / dealers issued only the invoices and no goods were dispatched by the manufacturer/dealers with the invoices. 19. Under Rule 4(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., PONDICHERRY Versus SPICPHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION 2006 (199) E.L.T. 686 (Tri.-Chennai) 5.5. We find that the ratio of the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case also. Thus, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the credit availed by the appellant is in order and accordingly, we set aside the disallowance of the cenvat credit in the impugned order. 5.6. As the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is in order, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty under section 78 of the finance act does not arise. 5.7. Regarding the Late Fee confirmed in the impugned order, we find that the appellant has filed the returns beyond the stipulated time. Thus, we observe that the appellant is liable to pay the late Fee amounting to Rs.70,500/- confirmed in the impugned order as per Rule 7C read with section 70(1) of the Finance Act. 5.8. We also find that the demands confirmed in the impugned order are time barred. We observe that the SCN in this case was issued after more than 3 years of conduct of Enquiry by the officers of the Service Tax II Commissionerate. We also find that the entire demand has ....