M/S. Roca Bath Room Proucts Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.115/2014-CE, dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]

M/s. ROCA BATH ROOM PROUCTS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Shri J. Shankar Raman Adv.

For the Respondent Shri R. Subramaniyan AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 06-03-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40217 / 2015

Learned counsel says that claim of Cenvat credit is genuine as well as the invoices supporting such claim is genuine. He says that the invoice was not spurious document and both the service recipient as well as provider were identifiable. Therefore defects, if any, in the invoice can be rectified, if the appellant gets an opportunity to do so. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-II reported in 2013 (291) E.L.T.464 (Tri.-Del.) to support his claim. He further buttresses that para 4.5 of the Adjudication order which gave rise to dispute is that the Invoice number does not contain the address and registration number of the service provider and contended that the same was issued by the Head Office of the appellant which can be verified. In this regard, he drew the attention to copy of the invoice finding place at page number 59 of the appeal folder. He demonstrates that service tax registration is viable from that document. He also submits that the said document was the only document before the learned Adjudicating authority to examine the veracity thereof. His observation in para 4.5 of the Adjudication order stating that without address and registration of the service provider, verification was not possible, fails to sustain. Therefore, not only stay application but appeal may also be allowed following the decisions cited above.

3. Revenue supports adjudication.

4. Entire avernment of learned counsel is verifiable from page number 59 of the appeal folder. When that is examined in terms of para 4.5 of Adjudication order, that establishes truth of averment. Therefore, in absence of spurious transaction made, claim for Cenvat credit should not be denied. Accordingly, appellant succeeds for which appeal is allowed and stay application is disposed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 09-03-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 06.03.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 06.06.2015

Fair Order Typing 09.03.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch 10.03.2015

4 ST/S/41653/2014 and ST/41367/2014