Page 110 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

324 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
7. From the above clarification, it can be seen that only when a visit is
made by the audit team/department, the audit can be said to be initiated. In the
present case, the department though contends that they have visited the premis-
es on 26-11-2012 no documents have been produced to establish the same. From
the Circular, the department is duty bound to maintain register of visit for audit
purposes. When the matter had come up for hearing on earlier dates, the Bench
had directed the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue to verify
and submit as to whether there are any documents to support the visit made by
audit party on 26-11-2012. The Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue
represented that though two letters were sent to the department no reply has
been received so far. It has to be then concluded that the department has no doc-
uments to establish their contention that they have visited the premises on 26-11-
2012. More so, in the reply to the show cause notice itself, the appellant has taken
the plea that there has been no visit of audit party on 26-11-2012. It is also sub-
mitted that the father of the appellant had passed away on 8-11-2012 and the of-
fice was closed during the said period. The department then has to establish that
they had visited the premises on 26-11-2012. A letter merely requesting for fur-
nishing of documents cannot be considered as initiation of audit as clarified by
the Board in the said Circular, dated 8-8-2013.
8. From the above discussions, I have no hesitation to conclude that the
rejection of VCES stating the reason that audit has been initiated is against the
facts of the case. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appel-
lant is, therefore, allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 324 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)
ANAND I POWER LTD.

Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CGST, NASIK
Final Order No. A/85141/2020-WZB, dated 3-2-2020 in Appeal No. E/88404/2018
Cenvat credit - Input service - Renting of Immovable Property services
taken to be used as branch office for procurement of orders, delivery of goods,
Repair and Maintenance service as well as for marketing purpose - Appellant
eligible to avail the credits for both pre- and post-amendment period covering
the entire disputed period and its specific non-reflection in ER-1, could be due
to non-availability of such specific narration in the format meant for filing of
ER-1 returns itself - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 5]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
I.P. Ring Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017-TIOL-869-CESTAT-(Madras) — Relied on................... [Paras 3, 5]
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  110