9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces were shared by three other manufacturing units of the company also. The period of dispute is from April 2008 to March 2012. Three show-cause notices were issued for this period to deny the CENVAT credit totaling to Rs.1.53 crores. One of these show-cause notices invoked the extended period of limitation. But the other two show-cause notices were issued within the normal period. Though the show-cause notices proposed to deny the entire credit, the adjudicating authority allowed a major portion thereof to the appellant proportionate to their turn-over vis-a-vis the total turn-over of all the four units. In the result, CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.25,99,401/- came to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the input services covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and these include the amounts of CENVAT credit availed on input services. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to enjoy undue benefit of CENVAT credit. 2. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Authorized Representative of the Department that Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 inter alia prescribes invoices / bills / challans issued by an ISD for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. The input services in question were all received by the Head Office of the company and the same were shared by the four manufacturing units. In this scenario, there was distribution of input services by the company to the four units and therefore CENVAT credit could have been taken only on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the name of any input service provider. In the case of ECOF Industries (supra)) the scope of Rules 3 and 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was examined and it was held that the only two restrictions in respect of availment of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 7 were that the credit should not exceed the amount of service tax covered by the service provider's invoice and that the credit should not be attributable to services used in the manufacturing of exempted goods or for providing exempted services. The decision of the Tribunal in ECOF Industries (supra) case was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide 2011 (23) STR 337 (Kar.). In the instant case, the Department has not alleged that any of the input services was used in the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
