Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Ramsons Tmt Pvt. Ltd on 21 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. ST/25 & 26/11-Mum (Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. SR/366 & 367/NGP/2010 both dated 14.10.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Appellant Vs. Ramsons TMT Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Sunil G. Agarwal, Advocate, for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 21.5.2014 Date of Decision: 21.5.2014 ORDER NO
Heard both sides. Common issue is involved, therefore the appeals are being taken up together.
2. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders whereby the credit of service tax paid on the service provider is denied. Proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notices for denying the credit on the ground that credit has been availed on the basis of supplementary invoices. As per Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules if the tax has been paid subsequently and there is allegation of suppression or fraud etc., the recipient is not eligible for taking credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. The adjudicating authority denied the credit and also imposed penalties. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that no proceedings were initiated against the service provider who issued supplementary invoices hence there is no question of fraud or suppression against the service provider.
3. The Revenue relied upon the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and submitted that the supplementary invoices were issued after 14 days from the date of completion of the service provided or the payment received by the provider of service hence the credit on the basis of supplementary invoices is not admissible.
4. The respondents relied upon the findings of the lower authority.
5. During the pendency of the appeals, the Revenue was directed vide order dated 17.2.2014 to find out if any show cause notice was issued to the service provider. No information has been received from the Revenue. As there is no evidence on record to show that there is allegation of suppression of facts or fraud against the service provider who issued the supplementary invoices hence I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3