9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004 read with Section 75 of the FA, 1994 - Held that: - the appellants have utilised an amount of ₹ 74,33,595/- for payment of service tax on certain services during the period March 2012 to July 2012 - interest upheld. Penalty u/r 15(3) of CCR - Held that: - appellants are not liable to penalty because they have been regularly filing their monthly returns in Form ER2 and ST3 and there is no suppression on their part nor Revenue has brought any evidence on record to show that they had any intention to evade payment of tax - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/20707/2016-SM - 22439/2017 - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir CENVAT credit account of August 2012 and intimated the Department vide letter dt. 22/09/2012. But the appellant had not paid any interest on the ineligible CENVAT credit availed by them. It was also found on verification of ER return for the month of March, 2012 and April, 2012 and the statement of CENVAT credit availment and utilisation, it was found that ITI had availed an ineligible input service tax credit of ₹ 1,21,57,322/-, out of which an amount of ₹ 74,33,595/- was utilised for payment of service tax on certain services during the period March 2012 and July, 2012. The appellant filed the reply to the show-cause notice and after following the due process of law, the learned Commissioner vide the impugned order dt. 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary, the said rule provides for retaking of the CENVAT credit which has been reversed by the assessee as and when the payments are made. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the appellant has reversed the CENVAT credit in August 2012 itself before the issue of show-cause notice, they are not liable to pay interest or penalty under Rule 15 of CCR. He also submitted that the demand of interest on the alleged ineligible CENVAT credit is not sustainable in law, particularly when the appellants were having sufficient credit balance in their CENVAT credit account. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Allahabad Vs. Blrampur Chini Mills Ltd. [2014 (300) ELT 449 (Tri. Del.)] ii. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have taken the ineligible CENVAT credit in violation of the provisions of Rule 4(7) of the CCR, 2004 in respect of the input service for which they have not made payment within three months from the date of receipt of invoices. I also find that this aspect of availment of CENVAT credit was detected during the audit conducted by the Revenue and thereafter the appellant reversed the entire ineligible credit in their CENVAT credit account in August 2012 and intimated the Department on 22/09/2012. Further I find that the appellants have utilised an amount of ₹ 74,33,595/- for payment of service tax on certain services during the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
