9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in as much as on the very same issue of the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on security services, audit had raised objection in the year 2008 (Copy of the letter enclosed at Page No 97 and 98 of Appeal Memorandum). Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed the facts in availing the credit on such Input Services from the knowledge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same services do not appears to be covered under the definition of 'Input Service' and has no nexus with the manufacturing activity, a demand notice was issued on 29.12.2011 for recovery of Cenvat Credit amounting of ₹ 49,78,860/- for the said period. The assessee vide their letter dtd 3.10.2011 informed that they had reversed ₹ 52,356/- towards inadmissible Service Tax credit avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the demand is barred by limitation. Regarding the period prior to March 2011, he submits the demand is barred by limitation in as much as the department conducted audit of their records in February 2008, and objection about the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on such 'Input Services' was communicated to them vide letter dt. 26.2.2008. However, no show cause notice demanding the Cenvat Credit ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It is submitted that for the period prior to April 2011 the demand is barred by limitation as no fact was suppressed or mis-declared to the dept. in availing the credit. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in as much as on the very same issue of the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on security services, audit had raised objection in the year 2008 (Copy of the letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
