Case Law Details
Navkar Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that as registration numbers were purposefully omitted, accordingly, the genuineness of the invoices are doubtful, the invoices are categorized as inadmissible document.
Facts- Assessee-Appellant M/s. Navkar Corporation Ltd. has been providing Cargo Handling Services, Storage and Warehousing Services. On the basis of intelligence gathered, premises of the Assessee was searched on 11.05.2012, several documents were seized under Panchnama including invoices on which CENVAT Credit were taken, statements of the witness were recorded.
A show-cause cum-demand notice dated 10.10.2004 was issued to the Appellant to show cause as to why the CENVAT Credit should not be denied and recovered from them as inadmissible CENVAT Credit of Construction Service availed by them during the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11, under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance act, 1994 along with interest and penalty.
Conclusion- Held that the registration numbers were purposefully omitted from being reflected, in some of the invoices by deleting the same from the relevant place where as the same is found reflected in bill dated 12.06.2009. This aspect is not referred in the show-cause notice though the same show-cause notice was issued on the basis of investigation but the genuineness of the invoices are doubtful since placing the Service Tax registration number is conspicuous by its absence that would put the invoices in the category of inadmissible document.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
