9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 came into effect from 10-9-2004 vide Notification No. 23/04-CE(N.T.) dated 10-9-2004. It was contended by the department that service tax paid in April, 2007 in respect of service provided during the period prior to 10-9-2004 cannot be allowed in terms of Rule 3(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 wherein it was provided that on input service received by the manufacture of final product or by provider of output service on or after 10-9-2004 credit shall be allowed, whereas in the present case service tax was paid after 10-9-2004 therefore credit is not admissible. Demand of Cenvat credit was confirmed and the same was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri. P.V. Sad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trichy [2014(35) STR 363(Tri. Chennai)] (c) Schoot Glass India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II [2013-TIOL-518-CESTAT-AHM] 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. The undisputed facts in the present case is that the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid by the service provider in the month of April, 2007, this service tax was paid for the services provided during the period prior to 10-9-2004, when Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is in operation. After 10-9-2004 the relevant Rules is reproduced below: Rule 3. CENVAT credit. - (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product or premises of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not before 10-9-2004 but in the month of April, 2007 such amount was neither earned prior to 10-9-2004 nor lying unutilized as on 10-9-2004 therefore credit is not admissible even as per transitional provisions under Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. A.R in case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd (supra), Karur Vyasa Bank Ltd (supra) and Schoot Glass India Pvt Ltd(supra) are directly applicable in the facts of the present case. As regard the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel in case of Arbes Tools Pvt Ltd(supra) the same is not applicable as the facts involved in that case is that unutilized credit was lying as on 10-9-2004 therefore facts is entirely different from the facts of the present case. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
