9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and when it was found that, in fact, an amount of ₹ 13,27,415/- was recovered by the contractor and the same was recovered by the appellant from its employees/beneficiaries, the appellant was not entitled to the Cenvat Credit of the same, no error has been committed in confirming the show-cause notice and making the demand of ₹ 1,59,353/-towards the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed by the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal - Decided against assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 367 of 2014, Civil Application No. 240 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2014 - M. R. Shah And K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Harshad K. Patel For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944. The said show-cause notice came to be confirmed by the first adjudicating authority confirming the demand of ₹ 1,59,353/- and the penalty of the like amount under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also came to be imposed. By the Order in Original, the appellant was directed to pay the interest at the applicable rate under Rule 14 of the Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order in Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand of ₹ 1,59,353/- and imposition of penalty of like amount and the interest thereon, the appellant has preferred an appeal before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with Sec. 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be imposed on appellant ? 6. Whether outdoor catering is input service and the appellant is entitled to avail the input service tax credit ? 7.Whether the appellant has not recovered any service tax portion from the employees ? 8. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering the issue that show cause notice is time barred ? 9. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating that no penalty can be imposed in view of bonafide belief on the part of the appellant? 6. Mr. H.K. Patel learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and/or consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below holding that the demand confirmed has only with respect to that amount which has recovered from the beneficiaries/employees of the appellant. It is submitted that, therefore, the appellant had wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit, and therefore, the same is rightly reversed and the show-cause notice is rightly confirmed. It is submitted that even on the aspect of limitation, it has been found that there was suppression on the part of the appellant in not providing full particulars with respect to the amount collected from the employees, and therefore, the authority had rightly exercised the powers by invoking the extended period of limitation. As such, all the decisions relied upon by the appellant has been dealt with and considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the amount from the beneficiaries/employees, and therefore, the extended period of limitation has been invoked. It cannot be said that all the authorities have committed any error. 12. So far as the last contention on behalf of the appellant that now the question only with respect to interest and penalty is concerned, it is required to be noted that the aforesaid would be a consequential under the relevant provisions of the Act and Cenvat Rules. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of the Tax Appeal No. 367/2014, OJCA No. 240/2014 stands disposed of accordingly. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
