9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was also reversed. Therefore, there has been an erroneous computation in the impugned order leading to the incorrect conclusion that there is a shortfall in tax paid by the appellant. We do not find any short-payment of tax. Denial of the substantial benefit of abatement owing to availment of CENVAT credit of a mere of ₹ 8,233/- does not appear to be equitable particularly as the amount has been made good. Hence, the reversal is sufficient to render the availment to be non-existent. Consequently, appellant is entitled to abatement as computed at the time of discharge of service tax in march 2006 followed by decision of this Tribunal in the case of BG Shirke Technology P Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II [2012 (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort-payment of ₹ 6,10,423/- and alleging ineligible availment of credit of ₹ 34,476/- between November 2004 and December 2005. Thus, the total tax liability was computed to be ₹ 34,23,401/-. 3. The original authority has held that the notice had created an artificial segregation between services rendered to 100% Export Oriented Units and other which, if taken together, shows that tax of ₹ 83,18,552 had been paid towards rendering of commercial or industrial construction service' against tax dues computed in the notice at ₹ 88,95,646/- and that the shortfall of ₹ 5,77,094/- having been made goods along with interest on 31 st October 2006, there remained no further amount to be recovered from appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, our attention was drawn to the decision of this Tribunal regarding reversal of credit utilised being tantamount to non-availment in BG Shirke Technology P Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II [2012 (27) STR 366 (Tri-Mumbai)]. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order. 7. We find that there has been an erroneous computation in the impugned order leading to the incorrect conclusion that there is a shortfall in tax paid by the appellant. We do not find any short-payment of tax. Denial of the substantial benefit of abatement owing to availment of CENVAT credit of a mere of ₹ 8,233/- does not appear to be equitable particularly as the amount has been made good. Following our decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
