9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-5-2016 - Mr. M.N. Bhandari AND Mr. J.K. Ranka JJ Mr. Sarvesh Jain, counsel for appellant Mr. Indresh Sharma, counsel for respondent ORDER: 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 18.1.2012 passed Customs, Excise Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent assessee is engaged in providing Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service as defined under Section 65(105) (zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of audit it had been observed by the Audit Party that they had provided Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service during the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 (up to September 2008) and availed abatement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it that the assessee deposited the same knowing fully well that the claim earlier made was not in accordance with law, accordingly the AA confirmed the service tax, interest as also penalty subject to maximum of the due sales tax demand. 4. The appeal preferred by the assessee resulted into dismissal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who also held that the claim of the assessee was questionable and only on account of the Audit Party that this wrong claim was made known. 5. On a further appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and held that reversal of credit done by the respondent was under a bona fide belief availed to be admissible and when reversal had already been made and tax had already been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss of time bona fides were shown by depositing the cenvat credit along with interest and the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. He relied upon the judgments in Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. 2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.), Beekay Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur 2010 (17) S.T.R. 404 (Tri. - Del.). 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the finding that admittedly during the course of adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent to the clearance of the exempted product is in line with the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment laid down in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Accordingly, in our view the said judgment squarely covers the issue raised in the instant appeal. 10. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashima Dyecot Ltd. (supra), also took into consideration the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra), and observed as under:- 6. The findings rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) are clearly applicable to the present matters. In that case also, the case of the Department was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, took the view that the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken the credit of the duty paid in the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. The ratio laid down in this decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and maintenance of separate books of accounts at the initial stage cannot be considered to be a condition precedent for the purpose of claiming the benefit of exemption to the respondent-assessee. Thus, the judgment of Gujarat High Court is also squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case. 11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are on different proposition and distinguishable on facts. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
