9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that the provider of output service shall utilize credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - E/798/2009-SM - Final Order No. 20591/2018 - Dated:- 16-4-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri S. Ganesh, Advocate V.S.T. Associates, Advocates Consultants For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commisisoner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 11/06/2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2.1 Briefly, the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalty equal to amount demanded under Rule 25 of CCR read with Section 11AC of CEA and were also proposed. 2.2. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice has held that those who opt not to maintain separate records of inputs and input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods, is required to pay the amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR and demanded the said amount along with interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the 010, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) are not applicable as they have maintained separate inventory of inputs used in dutiable and exempted g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(3). In support of this, he has also annexed copy of ST3 return showing that he has utilized 20% of the amount of service tax. For this, he relied upon the decision in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE C, Thiruvananthapuram [2009(13) STR 553 (Tri. Bang.)]. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the -impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has availed input service credit in respect of input services received in the factory and did not maintain separate accounts both for dutiable and exempted final product. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has maintained separate accounts in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit or otherwise. 7. Further I find that both the authorities have not given any reasons as to how provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) are not applicable in the present case and how Rule 6(3)(b) is applicable. Since in the present case, the appellant is a manufacturer as well as registered as a service provider and they have maintained separate accounts with regard to inputs, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) will be applicable to them which specifically states that the provider of output service shall utilize credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service. The appellant has complied with this requirement as is clear from the ST3 return which is on record and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
