9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate Ms. Natasha Sarkar, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Appeal No. E/58867/2013 is filed by appellants - M/s Dabur India Limited against Order-in-Original No. 14/Commissioner/GZB/2012-13 dated 28/03/2013 Appeal No. E/58868/2013 is filed by appellants, M/s Dabur India Limited against Order-in-Original No.15/Commissioner/GZB/2012-13 dated 28/03/2013. The issue in both these appeals is common. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. E/58867/2013 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants - M/s Dabur India Limited, Corporate Office, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad were registered with the Central Excise Service Tax department as Input Service Distributors (ISD in short) M/s Dabur India Limited were availing the facility of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on various Input Services including Advertisement Service Sales Promotion Service. As Input Service distributors they used to distribute Input Service credit to its various Units which were manufacturing dutiable goods. Certain Units of M/s Dabur India Limited were availing area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consolidated figures of said inadmissible credit is given as below S. No. Name of the Unit Address Credit of items as distributed Inadmissible credit distributed by the ISD S. Tax Ed. Cess SHE Cess Total S. Tax Ed. Cess SHE Cess Total 1 Dabur India Ltd. Industrial Area Alwar Rajasthan (Ann.-C-1) 79205170 1583438 604261 81392869 51766811 1034855 416999 53218665 2 Dabur India Ltd. Survey No. 225/4/I Saily Road, Dadra Nagar Haveli Silvasa (Unit I, plant-1024) (Ann-C-2) 61042358 1221278 502168 62765804 57626614 1153484 479109 59259207 3 Dabur India Ltd. Survey No. 225/4/I Saily Road, Dadra Nagar Haveli Silvasa (UnitII ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (Rs.39,09,62,154/- S. Tax + ₹ 78,19,268/- Ed. Cess + ₹ 30,75,287/- SHE Cess) on the input service of advertisement sales promotion during April, 2006 to March, 2010. Out of said Cenvat credit, ₹ 28,49,22,977/- (Rs.27,71,49,000/- S. Tax + ₹ 55,43,042/- Ed. Cess + ₹ 22,30,935/- SHE Cess) has been availed on the input service of advertisement sales promotion attributable to exempted products and traded goods and the same has been distributed to their duty paying manufacturing units for utilization. Therefore, it appears M/s DIL (ISD) have wrongly availed and distributed the said Cenvat credit and the same is liable to be recovered along with interest from them. It appeared to Revenue that Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 28,49,22,997/- on account of exempted goods and traded goods were inadmissible for distribution since the said credit was in respect of Service Tax paid on Services of Advertisement Service Sales Promotion Services which were attributable to exempted goods. Therefore, M/s Dabur India Limited were called upon to show cause as to why Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 41,33,92,472/- including Cenvat credit amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted goods is not admissible to be distributed. He further contended that the Show Cause Notice has nowhere established that the Service Tax which was proposed to be recovered was attributable to services exclusively used in those Units which were exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods. He has further contended that it is admitted fact that the services were commonly used for entire group of manufacturing organization and that the apportionment of admissible Cenvat credit and inadmissible credit for issue of Show Cause Notice was by Revenue on the basis of turnover of Units which were manufacturing exempted goods and turnover of the Units which were manufacturing taxable goods. He further contended that in the entire Show Cause Notice therein no allegation that credit of Service Tax of any service used exclusively in the Unit which is manufacturing exempted goods have been availed or distributed. He further contended that Clause (d) of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which was introduced subsequent to the period of Show Cause Notice was relied upon by Original Authority for confirmation of demand and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
