Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Lse Securities Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 8 August, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 SINGLE BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. ST/53997/2015 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-077-15-16 dated 27.07.2015 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh] Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.08.2017 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) LSE Securities Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
________________________________________________ Appearance Shri. Devendra pal Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. H. Singh, AR- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61487 / 2017 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is service provider under the category of Stock Broker Service. The appellant availed cenvat credit on the strength of photocopies of the invoices which were denied by the authorities below on the ground that as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the original copy of the invoices which they failed to produce before the authorities below. The cenvat credit sought to be denied on the invoices issued at the address of Mumbai & Delhi, where the appellant is not having office for the services rendered in Ludhiana office. The claim of the appellant is that they have not availed cenvat credit on these invoices but the authorities below denied the cenvat credit. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. Heard both sides.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellant is not disputed denial of cenvat credit on photocopies of the invoices, as they have taken cenvat credit and the same has been audited by the Chartered Accountant, therefore, the penalty is not imposable as there was no mala-fide intention of the appellant to avoid admissible cenvat credit. As the mala-fide intention of the appellant is missing and cenvat credit is denied only on the ground of the original photocopies of the invoice are not available. In that circumstance, I hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant.
5. Further, I find that the claim of the appellant is that the invoices issued in the name of the Bombay and Delhi office for the services received in Ludhiana office, the appellant has not availed cenvat credit and the demand has been confirmed on those invoices. This fact is required to be verified at the end of the adjudicating authority, therefore, to that extent, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact that the invoice on which cenvat credit sought to be denied whether the appellant availed cenvat credit or not? After ascertaining the said facts, the adjudicating authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
In view of the above observations, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 2 ST/53997/2015