9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been passed on to the appellant and they have also made payment thereof to the service provider, there can be no denial to them of such cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/41978/2016 - 40622/2017 - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that appellants are a manufacturing unit. On verification of records, it appeared to the department that appellants had wrongly availed credit of service tax paid on security services during the period July 2012 to August 2013. For this belief, department relied upon Notfn No.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these documents in support of these contentions had been submitted by the appellant before both lower authorities. He placed reliance on the ratio of the following Tribunal decisions :- (i) Kerala State Electronic Corporation Vs CC Kochi 1996 (84) ELT 44 (Tribunal) which inter alia held that modvat credit is to be allowed as per the amount of duty indicated in the duty paying documents and whether the duty short paid or paid in excess is not relevant. (ii) Final Order No.40510/2017 dt. 17.03.2017 which followed jurisdictional High Court decision in CCE Vs 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.) and held that when input duty paid that has gone into the process not disputed by Revenue manufacturer-appellant cannot be denied credit thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the said Rule, a manufacturer or producer of final products or provider output service shall be allowed to take credit of the duties, cess, tax etc. specified in sub-rule (1) thereof, which are leviable under the relevant statutory provisions, provided such duty, tax etc. leviable has also been paid inter alia on any input service received by the manufacturer of final products or by provider of output service. I am unable to find any breach of these conditionalities in the matter before me. There could no dispute that service tax leviable has been fully paid. This fact will therefore satisfy the requirement of Rule 3 ibid and particularly, when such tax liability has been passed on to the appellant and they have also made paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
