9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Regarding penalty - Held that:- Appellant was under the bonafide belief that Cenvat Credit is admissible on GTA Services. As there is no indication of suppression with intention to evade any Service Tax, therefore, penalty is not attracted in this case under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/833/2012-DB - ORDER No. A/11730/2013 - Dated:- 17-12-2013 - Mr. H.K. Thakur and Mr. M.V. Ravindran, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S.J. Vyas (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri Shivakumar (Adv.) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against OIO No. 49/Commr./Surat II/2012 dated 17.08.2012 under which Appellant has been denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as per the following case laws: (i) Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Vadodara-II Vs. Dynaflex Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 41 (Guj.) (ii) Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus. Vs. Sweet Industries reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T. 349 (Guj.) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Kar.) (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd. reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 192 (Kar.) (v) Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara Vs. M.J. Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 712 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (vi) Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Vadodara-II Vs. M.J. Pharmaceutical Indus. Ltd. reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. 4.1 The words upto the place of removal were existing as from the place of removal, before 01.04.2008. From the amendment carried out in the definition of Input Service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is apparent that the Service Tax Credit on GTA Services from the place of removal will not be admissible to the Appellant w.e.f 1.4.2008 and has been correctly denied by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are reproduced below: 15. In order to appreciate the findings recorded by the High Court by way of reading down the provision of Rule 14, we deem it appropriate to extract the said Rule at this stage which is as follows: Rule 14: Recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded:- Where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of Sections 11A and 11AB of the Excise Act or Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries. 16. A bare reading of the said Rule would indicate that the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en erroneously refunded, the same along with interest would be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service. The issue is as to whether the aforesaid word OR appearing in Rule 14, twice, could be read as AND by way of reading it down as has been done by the High Court. If the aforesaid provision is read as a whole we find no reason to read the word OR in between the expressions taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded as the word AND . On the happening of any of the three aforesaid circumstances such credit becomes recoverable along with interest. 5.2 In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court specifically for interpretation of Rule 14 it is not appropriate to place relianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
