M/S Sangam India Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-Ii
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/51350/2014 -Ex[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where invoices are defective in that they were neither re-authenticated nor signed by an authorized signatory, the genuineness of such documents and the consequent eligibility to cenvat credit are matters to be verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise and Service Tax authorities over the registered premises of the service provider, and the appellate forum will not itself decide that question; where the parties agree that verification lies with the jurisdictional authorities, the demand and penalty founded on the defects are set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the genuineness of the documents and re-adjudicate after affording a personal hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 167(OPD)CE/JPR-II/2013 dated: 29.10.2013 passed by CCE Jaipur-II]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Sangam India Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-II Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. M. S. Negi, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.17.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 52135 /2015
Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise (Jaipur), wherein for certain defects in the invoices, the cenvat benefit has been denied to the appellant. According to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Invoice No. 207919908 dated 13.03.2007 & Invoice No. 207919909 dated 15.03.2007 suffer from the defects i.e. the same were neither re-authenticated nor signed by the authorized signatory.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides.
3. On perusal of the invoice available in file, I find that the findings recorded in the impugned order are correct. Since, the genuineness of the document has to be verified by the Central Excise & Service Tax Officers having jurisdiction over the registered premises of the service provider, I am not expressing any opinion on the genuineness or otherwise, eligibility of the same for cenvat credit at this juncture..
4. Both sides agree that the documents are to be verified by the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside with regard to the service tax demand of Rs. 47,001/- confirmed and penalty imposed in the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for ascertaining the genuineness of the documents and for re-adjudication of the matter after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 2
Page | 1
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