Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hcl Infosystems Ltd vs Cce, Puducherry on 6 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/41423/2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original (Denovo) No. 9/2015 (C) (ST) dated 26.3.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry)
M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Puducherry Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 06.05.2016 Final Order No. 40734 / 2016 Consequent upon calling of the report as to deposit of the service tax element as appearing in Table under para 16 of the adjudication order, Revenue agrees that the service tax element under Sl. No. 1 and 3 of the Table is admissible as CENVAT credit to the appellant. Such averment has been made on the basis of report of the reporting authority which came to record vide communication dated 15.7.2015 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry and forwarded to Commissioner (AR), CESTAT, Chennai vide letter dated 3.5.2016.
2. It is agreed by both sides that there is no dispute as regards Sl. No. 2, which was resolved at the adjudication level.
3. The only dispute that is raised is Sl. No. 4 of the Table. While the invoice was dated as 25.11.2010 in the Table and element of the tax was Rs.1,69,411/-, the document came to record shows that the invoice was dated as 25.12.2010 and the tax element was Rs.1,68,410/-. In view of such an arithmetical error, Revenue is not agreeing with the contention of the appellant for allowance of the credit.
4. When Revenue agrees to the extent of Rs.1,68,410/-, there is no dispute to allow credit to this extent to the appellant. Learned adjudicating authority shall do the needful. So far as discrepancy between Rs.1,69,411/- and Rs.1,68,410/- is concerned, that needs to be enquired by the adjudicating authority for grant of that differential amount of credit. By this, it is not said that the grant of CENVAT credit shall be held on awaiting enquiry.
5. In short, appellant is entitled to the credit under Sl. No. 1, 3 and 4 to the extent indicated above except awaiting result of enquiry in respect of differential amount at Sl. No. 4 of the Table aforesaid.
6. As the enquiry has resulted the truth, there shall be no penalty.
7. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2