9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present for Shri Ashish Vaish, CA the appellant Present Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The appeal is against Order-in-Appeal number 21/2008 dated 31.1.2008. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The issue involved in the case is whether the cenvat credits availed by the appellant in respect of service tax paid on goods transport services on the basis of TR-6 challans is valid. The appellant availed credit to the extent of ₹ 29,95,414/- during the period 01.02.2005 to 15.6.2005. Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were amende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the contention of the appellant that the respondents have to reverse the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on goods transport agencies between the period of March, 2005 to 15-6-2005 which they did not accept. It is further the contention of the appellant that Rule 9 specified the documents on which Cenvat credit can be availed of by a manufacturer prior to 16-6-2005. In terms of clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, of the Rules of 2004, a challan evidencing payment of Service Tax was a specified document for the purpose of availing Service Tax credit and the entities listed in clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 can take the Service Tax credit on the strength of such challan. But, however, in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, in the present case, has nowhere contended which were the specified document for availing of such credit during the relevant time. If no documents have been mentioned, TR-6 Challan has to be considered as a proper document, reflecting payment of such tax. Further, it is also not the case of the appellant that Service Tax was not paid by the respondents or that they were otherwise not entitled to such credit. 8. The Punjab Haryana High Court, in the case of CCE v. Ralson India Ltd. - (2007) 6 STT 134 = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 505 (P H) held that if the duty paid has the character of inputs and their receipt in manufacturer s factory and utilization in manufacture of final product is not disputed, then the credit cannot be denied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
