9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, Rule 6(3) had been amended w.e.f. 1.3.2008 to provide an additional option to a manufacturer / output service provider to reverse the credit attributable to the inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products /provisions of exempted services. In this case, there is no dispute that the appellant have already revered the cenvat credit of ₹ 74,177/- along with interest of ₹ 18,730/- attributable to the input services used in or in relation to providing the exempted service. - In view of this, the impugned order confirming the demand of ₹ 78,57,162/- from the appellants under Rule 6(3) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest and imposing penalty of equal am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment invoking Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 sought recovery of an amount equal to 8%/6% of the rental amount received by them in respect of letting out of the residential property. Accordingly, the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 19.02.2014 confirmed the demand of ₹ 78,57,162/- against the appellant .under Rule 6(3)(i) alongwith interest thereon under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. Besides this, he imposed penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri T.R. Rustagi, Advocate, ld. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Rules, 2004 by Finance Act, 1994 permitting such a course with retrospective effect, that in view of this, the impugned order is totally wrong, that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount demanded under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 interest thereon and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed. 4. Shri M. S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant had used certain common input services in or in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
