Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Remidex Pharma Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 25 July, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order . 21253 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: E/2751/2011-SM [Arising out of 194-2011 dated 11/07/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals), Bangalore ] REMIDEX PHARMA PVT LTD NO.B-249 & 250, II STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE 560 058 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Vijaya Sampath, Advocate G.SAMPATH & S. RAGHU 543,12TH CROSS,8TH MAIN J.P NAGARA 2ND PAHASE, BANGALORE - 560078 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Shri Ganesh Haavanur, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 25/07/2014 Date of Decision: 25/07/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY CENVAT credit has been denied on the ground that the invoices did not contain the registration number of the service provider which is a mandatory requirement and cannot be waived. I take note of the fact that even under Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, which empowers the proper officer to condone such omissions, non-mentioning of the registration number of the provider is not one of the omissions which can be condoned. Therefore the demand service tax and interest has to be sustained as correctly made. However, as regards penalty, I consider that the same need not be imposed since the mistake is not on the part of the appellant and in fact if they were vigilant they could have got credit by insisting on a proper invoice. In such a situation for a mistake committed by the service provider, it may not be appropriate to impose penalty in addition to the reversal of credit with interest. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. The appeal is decided in above terms.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.2