CASTROL (I) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and stay petition are directed against Order -in -Original No. 171/MAK/(171)/Commr/ RGD/13 -14, dated 15 -1 -2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 66,55,823/ - being the ineligible amount of credit taken by the appellant on the strength of invalid/incomplete documents. In addition, interest liability on the said demand has also been confirmed apart from an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.

(2.) THE appellant has also filed an application for early hearing of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation in the show cause notice is that the invoices of the service providers, who rendered the services to the appellant, did not contain their registration numbers. As per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004, the document on the strength on which the credit is taken should contain the name and address and registration number of the person providing these services. Name and address of the input service distributors, the amount of credit, etc. Inasmuch as the registration number of the service provider was missing, the credit was sought to be denied. The learned Counsel also submits that the services were received by the Head Office which is registered as input service distributor and the Head Office issued ISD invoices for availment of credit. His first contention is that there is no short coming as the credit was taken by the appellant based on the ISD invoices issued by the Head Office. His second contention is that during the course of adjudication proceedings, they had submitted a list containing the service tax registration numbers of all the service providers. Therefore, the department could have verified whether these service providers were registered with the department or not and the Service Tax amounts indicated in the corresponding invoices issued by the service providers were in fact paid to the exchequer or not. Merely for the technical lapse of non -mentioning of the registration number, the substantive benefit of credit cannot be denied or disallowed to the appellant. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.