9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization to 20 per cent of the credit, then imposition of penalty is attracted. - Adjudicating Authority has rightly imposed the penalty of ₹ 100 per day till the payment of service tax under section 76 of the Finance Act restricting the total amount of penalty equivalent to the amount of service tax involved. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/59262/2013-ST [SM] - Final Order No. 54472/2014 - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - Shri Manmohan Singh, J. Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Devender Singh, JCDR for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per: Shri Manmohan Singh The appellant has come in appeal against Order-in-Appeal no. 149/ST/DLH/2013. It is observed that as there was a condition of restricting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice vide the impugned order mentioned in para 1 above. Subsequently, Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel Sh. R. Krishnan, fairly admitted that they were maintaining separate records. He referred that under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, it is distinctly provided that where any input service is used for providing output service which is further exported, the CENVAT Credit in respect the input services so used shall be allowed to be utilized by output service provider towards the payment of service tax of any output service and where for any reason, such adjustment is not possible, the service provider shall be allowed refund of such amount. Rule 5 at the relevant point of time read as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have utilized credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20 % of the amount of Service Tax payable on taxable output service in accordance with the provision of Rule 6 (3) (C)of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 6. He further explained that when the output services are provided free of whole of S. Tax and separate records are maintained, appellant should not have utilized input service credit on those services which were used for providing non-taxable services. Since they failed to comply with this condition, they violated the second condition too by not restricting the credit utilized to 20% of the credit. Thus, there was double violation of Rule 6 of CCR 2004. It was pleaded by ld. DR that in such position, imposition of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
