9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/23668/2014-SM, E/23670/2014-SM, E/23671/2014-SM And E/23672/2014-SM - 20748-20751/2017 - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per:S. S. Garg Appellants have filed these four appeals against the impugned order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Ceramic Glazed Tiles falling under Chapter 69 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing CENVAT credit on input services and further utilize the same for payment of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the credit amount which was recovered from their employees. The Tribunal further remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore for quantification of the CENVAT credit to be disallowed. The Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 30.9.2013 quantified the credit to be disallowed for the period July 2006 to April 2011 and held that the appellants are liable to pay ₹ 1,55,182/- along with interest and penalty. Thereafter, the appellant accepted the demand and paid the same along with interest. However, appellant did not agree with the imposition of penalty and filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original contesting the penalty portion. The learned Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts had a bona fide belief that they were eligible to take credit for outdoor catering service and the credit was allowed by the department and the same was confirmed by the Commissioner (A) in the initial stage and when the matter was remanded by the Tribunal by holding that the liability of the appellant to pay the cost that is borne by the employees and the same was later on quantified by the Deputy Commissioner and the appellant accepted the same and made the payment. She further submitted that for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of CCR, it is necessary to prove that assessee has taken the credit by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of provisions with an intention to evade pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,56,182/- along with interest and penalty but appellant paid the demand along with interest but did not pay the penalty on the ground that there was no direction by the Tribunal to impose penalty as the appellant was under a bona fide belief that he is entitled to the CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service on the basis of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. cited supra. Further, I also find that during the relevant time, there were conflicting decisions and the assessee had a bona fide belief that he is entitled to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service. Therefore, in view of the decisions cited supra by the learned counsel for the appellant wherein it has been held that when the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
