9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant. Thus, the original order passed upon appreciation of facts on record cannot be ignored to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts in terms of Rule 6(3A) of the rules. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly gone through the submissions of the appellant and did not scrutinise the documents submitted by the appellant in their proper p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. During the course of audit by the Service Tax department, it was noticed that the appellant had taken and utilized the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 7,80,945/- in contravention of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the department issued the show cause notice dated 18.10.2012, seeking recovery of the wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The matter was adjudicated vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng both taxable as well as exempted service. Thus, he submits that demand cannot be confirmed on the appellant. He has produced the details of invoices and other documents to show that the appellant had reversed the proportionate Cenvat credit in respect of the common input services used for providing both the category of services. He also submits that the said documents were produced before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the adjudication order, I find that upon appreciation of the records maintained by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has dropped the show cause notice and also confirmed /appropriated the amount which was subsequently paid by the appellant. Thus, the original order passed upon appreciation of facts on record cannot be ignored to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant did not mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
