9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2003 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act for wrongly availing the CENVAT credit. 2. Briefly the facts of the case as made out in the show-cause notice is that while auditing the records of the appellant, the internal audit party noticed that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,23,96,927/- based on the service tax invoices received from input service providers. However the value of the service and service tax paid or payable as indicated in the invoice / bill was not made within three months from the date of invoice/bill. Further the service tax availed on the basis of the said invoices of the service provider was not reversed as required under Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is also contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,29,96,927/- availed by the appellant during the period February 2012 to April 2012 and Rs. 3,817/- availed during the period September 2011 and January 2012 was reversed by the appellant in August 2012 i.e. much before the issuance of the show-cause notice dt. 28/08/2013 which is an admitted fact in the show-cause notice and the impugned order dt. 30/11/2015. He further submitted that Rule 4(7) of the CCR provides for reversal of CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on the basis of invoice, bill or challan given by the service provider, when the payments are not made by the assessee to the input service p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 15(3) is not sustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has violated the provisions of Rule 4(7) of CCR and has taken ineligible CENVAT credit and when it was pointed out by the audit, the appellant reversed the same before the issue of show-cause notice. He further submitted that the verification of ER2 return for the month of March 2012 and April 2012 and the statement of CENVAT credit account, it was found that the appellant had taken the ineligible input service credit of Rs. 1,21,57,322/- out of which an amount of Rs. 74,33,595/- was utilised for payment of service tax on certain services during the period March 2012 and July 2012. He also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
