Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Ashok Jindal, J.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (MP) -Respondent
Final Order No. 933/2010-SM(BR) Appeal No. E/2563/2008-SM(BR)
Decided On : 25-08-2010
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the denial of input service credit of Rs. 7,327 taken on the strength of debit notes and a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment is received. As the matter involves small amount of duty and penalty, the matter is taken up for final disposal on merits.
3. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have taken the input service credit on the strength of debit notes and the same was denied by the lower authorities.
4. Ld. DR submitted that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 deals that which documents are required to avail Cenvat credit and those documents are invoice, challans, supplementary invoice and bills of entry. No other document is permissible to avail Cenvat credit. Hence, the denial of Cenvat credit is correct.
5. Considering the submissions made by the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, I find that the lower appellate authority has rightly denied the input service credit to the appellants, which they have taken on the strength of debit notes. As per Rule 9(1)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit can be availed on the strength of invoice, supplementary invoice, challan or bills of entry. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for denial of input service credit. Accordingly, the demand for input service credit is confirmed. With regard to penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, no finding has been given as how the lower authorities arrived at a decision to impose penalty of Rs. 20,000. In fact, Rule 15 provides that the penalty equivalent to the duty or Rs. 2,000 whichever is greater and that too at the discretion of the authority penalising the assessee. In this case, imposition of penalty is arbitrary and hence I reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only). With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
