9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services as input services. The department was of the view that appellant having various other branches and advertisement services being common to all units the credit has to be availed on proportionate basis. Appellant agreed to these objections and reversed the credit of Rs. 44,056/- on 22/5/2010. However, the interest of Rs. 6200/- was paid later after issuance of show cause notice. The audit report had also directed the Range Superintendent to examine past records. Accordingly, the Range Superintendent issued letters requesting the appellant to furnish information/documents. Summons were also issued. It is the case of the department that appellant failed to respond to the letters and summons. A show cause notice was issued alleging wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax paid on input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service. However, such distribution is subject to two condition only: a. That the credit distributed should not exceed the amount of service tax paid; b. That credit of service tax attributable to service used by units exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted goods services shall not be distributed. 4. Apart for the above two conditions, the Rule does not provide any other restrictions during the disputed period. The argument of he appellant is not without substance. The appellant has no case that he has obtained registration as input service distributor during the relevant period. However, Rule 7 as it stood then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant had replied to the audit objections and also informed that the credit (Rs. 44,056) has been reversed. A further letter dated 15.06.2012 was issued by the Department raising very same queries, to which the appellant replied vide reply letter dated 10.07.2012. Appellant did not reply to the letter dated 30.07.2012 and 6.08.2012 on the belief that appellant had sufficiently replied to the queries as per reply letter dated 17.3.2011 and 10.07.2012. That to further letters, the appellant has replied vide reply letter dated 20.09.2012. Appellant did not receive any summons and came to know of its issuance only on receiving the show cause notice. That therefore the appellant has not responded to the summons, but has responded to the letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cific document was withheld resulting in particular revenue implication. The relevant provision is noticed as under: SECTION [77. Penalty for contravention of rules and provisions of Act for which no penalty is specified elsewhere. -(1) Any person,- (c) who fails to- (i) furnish information called by an officer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter or rules made thereunder; or (ii) produce documents called for by a Central Excise Officer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter or rules made thereunder; or (iii) appear before the Central Excise Officer, when issued with a summon for appearance to give evidence or to produce a document in an inquiry, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to [ten thousand ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
