9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f registration as well as prior to date of registration as held by this Tribunal in Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2011 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. Admitted case of the Revenue that the appellant is a output service provider, in view of the certificate of registration granted dated 11.1.2004, which has not been cancelled thereafter, I hold that the appellant has taken Service Tax credit for input services in accordance with law and have also utilized the same in accordance with law under the provisions of Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the ground of limitation also I hold in favour of the appellant in view of the proper declaration made before the Revenue by regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, it was recoverable under the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with provisions of Section 23(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also penalty was proposed to be levied under Section 78 read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant had contested the show-cause notice both on merits and on limitation. Vide Order-in-Original dated 30.10.2009, the proposed disallowance of CENVAT Credit was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has upheld the disallowance of credit record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or after the fourteenth day of May, 2003. Provided that the output service provider shall be allowed to take such credit, on or after the day on which he makes payment of the value of input service and the service tax paid or payable as indicated in invoice or bill or challan referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. From the apparent reading of the Rule 3, it appears that the appellant was entitled to take credit of the input service on or after 14.5.2003. Further, the appellant draws my attention to para 1 of the show-cause notice wherein it is admitted fact that the appellant applied for Service Tax Registration on 9.1.2004 and they were granted registration vide certificate dated 12.1.2004. Further argument by the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, invoice no., Service Tax registration no. of service provider, name and address of the service provider, description of service, the value of service and amount of credit taken. As the information was duly supplied regularly in the normal course of business, no allegation of suppression is attracted to the appellant and as such extended period is not invocable. The appellant also relies on the ruling of the Tribunal in the case ofCommissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata VI Vs. ITC Ltd. 2013 (291) ELT 377 (Tri-Kol), wherein a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held that where the assessee has filed returns regularly indicating the total amount of credit availed by them and nothing prevented the Revenue from making any further enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
