9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the assessee-appellants. While demanding Central Excise duty appellants are eligible for adjustment of amount already paid as service tax. Accordingly, the demand is reduced by the amount so paid - penalty not warranted as the issue involved is interpretational one. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/70287/2016-EX[SM] - A/70939/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.475-CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2015 dated 07.12.2015 wherein the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and also proposed to impose penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act, besides demand of interest. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30.01.2015 upheld the demand of ₹ 4,87,439/-; imposed equal penalty under Rule 25 of CCR, 2002 read with Section 11AC and confirmed the demand of interest under Section 11AB/11AA. The amounts already paid have been appropriated. 4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appellants appeal after observing that the taxability of developing charges received for moulds is not in dispute; the confirmation of demand of duty ₹ 4,87,439/- is not in dispute; the payment of service tax @ 12.36% on the amount received towards charges for developing moulds is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned A.R. for revenue supported the impugned Order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, I find that there is no dispute on liability for payment of Central Excise duty. The appellants only claim is that the amount of service tax paid should be adjusted against the demand of Central Excise duty. I find that this issue is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s K.R. Packaging (supra). Para-7 of the said order reads as under:- 7.Hence, in the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the activity of the assessee-appellants is of manufacture‟ and falls within the category of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the instant case, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
