2016 (11) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder In this appeal, appellants have challenged the order of the learned appellate authority denying service tax credit on various input services availed by them during the period December 2010 to June 2011. The original authority confirmed the demand with interest under Rule 14 of CCR 2004 for the delayed payment of duty and also imposed penalty under Rule 15 of CCR 2004 which is upheld in the O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t for the belated payment of demand and they are only pleading for setting aside penalty. 2.1. However, ld. Consultant submits that they are contesting the demands as per Sl.No.1 to 11 of the list, involving a total credit amount of Rs.56,832/- for the period upto 31.3.2011. 3. Ld. A.R submits that as per the definition, even prior to 1.4.2011 these services are not covered under the definition. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tances of this case. Accordingly, penalty is set aside in respect of the which is not disputed, subject to payment of interest by the appellants. 5. As regards the demand for the period prior to 1.4.2011, I find that the Revenue's reliance on Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Manikgarh Cement (supra) has no relevance as the said decision was rendered basing reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court j .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X