9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s hit by time bar. Since there is no suppression on part of the appellant and the appellants have disclosed the facts in relevant EA-3 returns about availment of CENVAT Credit, the extended period is not invocable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/704/12 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: This appeal is filed by the appellant-manufacturer against Order-in-Appeal No. US/555/RGD/2012 dated 10.9.2012, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel CO. Ltd., are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the employees of the appellants do not qualify as input service and hence, appellants are not eligible to take credit of the Service Tax paid on the said service. 2.1 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have rightly availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid by them on the construction services received as the aforesaid service qualify as input service and fall within the definition of input service' as defined under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty. Accordingly, the penalty is not imposable. 3.2 As regards the interest, the Counsel submits that the appellants are not liable to reverse CENVAT Credit, hence there is no question of imposing penalty or levying interest on the appellants. The appellant placed reliance on the following decisions in support of their contentions:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Ltd. Central Excise Appeal Nos.177 And 178 of 2011 (ii) Manikgarh Cement vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2008 (9) STR 554 (Tri-Mum) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Manikgarh Cement - 2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom) 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order and pleads for upholding the impugned order. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
