9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory premises whereas in the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service provided and credit availed was not either directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of the appellant's final product. The entire demand in this case is time barred because the show cause notice was issued on 24.9.2009 for alleged inadmissible credit availed by the appellant during the period July 2007 by invoking the extended period whereas in fact there has not been any suppression or wilful declaration by the appellant and the entire records were with the department, wherein the appellant has reflected the availment of credit. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/2003/10-Mum - A/86458/16/SMB - Dated:- 11-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the said construction was carried outside the factory premises. In fact the said construction was done within the central excise registered premises i.e. within the compound of the appellants factory. He also submitted that all the expenses of construction and taxes including service tax were borne by the appellant. The relevant TR-6 challan for the service tax paid was received by the appellant from the service provider i.e. M/s. Swastik Construction, and the entries for having paid the service tax were made in the statutory records giving the details of service provider and documents of input service i.e. RG-23A (Part II) have also been submitted along with the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Gujarat Forging Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2014 (36) STR 677; (ii) DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai-I reported in 2014 (36) STR 874. 3.3 He also submitted that the entire demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 24.9.2009 for alleged inadmissible credit availed by the appellant in July 2007 by invoking extended period whereas the appellant in their entire statutory records has mentioned all the details regarding the availment of the credit and has filed all these documents before the department and for this, the appellant relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Chintamani Lamination vs. CST, Ahmedabad reported in 2014 (33) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause the show cause notice was issued on 24.9.2009 for alleged inadmissible credit availed by the appellant during the period July 2007 by invoking the extended period whereas in fact there has not been any suppression or wilful declaration by the appellant and the entire records were with the department, wherein the appellant has reflected the availment of credit. 6.4 Further, I have gone through the various case laws cited at bar by the learned counsel for the appellant and they are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Therefore, considering the totality of the of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and I set aside the impugned order by al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
