Rakesh Kumar ORDER
Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)
1. The appellant are manufacturers of bathroom fittings chargeable to Central Excise duty. They are registered with the Central Excise authorities of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-1. Besides the Central Excise Registration, they also have taken Service Tax Registration for payment of Service Tax on the Goods Transport Agency Service received by them. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of the Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on the input services, as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the period March, 2006 to March, 2007, the appellant took credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service of procuring sales orders received from certain commission agents on the basis of the documents titled "debit notes" issued by the service providers. Another credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- was taken by the appellant during the same period on the basis of the invoices issued by one Shri Pradeep Chopra. These invoices were also issued in respect of providing the services of procuring of orders on commission. The department was of the view that the appellants are not eligible for Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- taken by them on the basis of the debit notes issued by various service providers as the debit notes are not the valid documents for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and even otherwise, the same do not contain the information which is required to be mentioned in the invoices issued by the service providers under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. With regard to Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- availed on the basis of the invoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra, the credit was denied on the ground that he is an employee of the appellant company and, therefore, the service provided by him is service to self and the appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit. Based on these two objections, the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, issued a show cause notice dated 23-9-2010 for:-
(a) recovery of the allegedly wrongly availed service tax Cenvat credit of Rs. 31,05,810/- from the appellant during the period from March, 2006 to March, 2007 under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994;
(b) imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(1)(f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules; and
(c) imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 10-2-2012 by which the above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand was confirmed under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under Section 75 ibid and besides this, while penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, another penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24-1-2013 upheld the Addl........