9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not any other assessee. - Credit cannot be allowed - on merit decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation - appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the months of March and April 2009, the said availment of credit has been informed to Department when they filed monthly returns. In my considered view, appellant could have entertained a bona fide belief that having paid for the training of personnel, they can avail the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid and I do not see any element of suppression or misstatement of facts on the part of the appellant that too with intent to evade duty in a situation as is in this case. Entertaining a bonafide belief of availment of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid that too, when assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued for demand of such ineligible Cenvat credit by invoking extended period, on an allegation that there was suppression of the fact on the part of appellant. The show cause notice was contested on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law confirmed the demands raised along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred to the first appellate authority. By the impugned order the first appellate authority has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant, upheld the order of confirmation of demand, interest and penalties imposed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant would draw my attention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs charge service tax under business auxiliary services to the appellant. It is his submission that the training activity which is undertaken is of the staff who are dispensing the CNG and are not the employees of appellant. He would then take me through the definition of the input service as is enshrined in rule 2(l) of Cenvat credit rules 2004. It is his submission that the services of dispensing CNG are not used in the manufacture of final products nor for the clearance of the same upto the place of removal. The entire activity of dispensing is post manufacturing activity. It is also the submission that the activity of training as imparted by service provider has nothing to do with the appellant. He would rely upon the majority decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el who are the employees of service provider and not of appellant. This service provider is discharging service tax under the category of business auxiliary services; Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is of the service tax paid on the services rendered for training of the personnel. In my considered view appellant as no case on merits as even though appellant has paid for the services rendered to training of the personnel, the said services or not rendered to the appellant directly. I find that the issue is no more res Integra as in the case of Gujarat State Petronat Ltd. 2013 (32) STR 510, Tribunal held that if services are utilised by the service provider Cenvat credit can be availed by such service provider and not any other assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
