M/S. Indian Additives Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.16/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the appellant fails before the adjudicating authority to prove the genuineness of a claimed input service credit with appropriate invoices, the credit is inadmissible and the appellant is to be directed to reverse it, there being no need to examine the matter further.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.16/2013 (M-I) , dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai ]
M/s. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar [No vakalat on file] for Shri K. Vaitheeswaran
Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 04-03-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40186 / 2015
While appellant says that Management Consultancy Service being input service used credit is admissible, Revenue denies the same on the ground that the appellant availed the same on the basis of debit notes which raised doubt to the department. As a result of which, that was held to be inadmissible.
2. Department is correct to hold as above, when genuinity of the claim itself remained in doubt. Learned counsel says that in view of limitation, department should not have initiated the proceeding.
3. When the appellant failed before the authority below to prove genuinity of the claim with appropriate invoice, there is no necessity to dilate the matter further. Accordingly, appellant is directed to reverse the credit and there shall be no interest payable if the credit was not utilised in existence of sufficiency of credit, nor penalty imposable for the reason that both the sides failed in their duty to examine pith and substance of the claim.
4. Appeal is allowed partly and pre-deposit of interest and penalty waived and stay application is disposed accordingly. Learned counsel submits that credit arose in the year 2003-04, whereas the credit thereof was claimed in 2008. Such a belated claim does not confer right on the appellant to make the claim. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 05-03-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 04.03.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 04.03.2015
Fair Order Typing 05.03.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 06.03.2015
4 E/S/40873/2013 and E/41229/2013
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free