9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion - Held that:- After initial objection in 2006, the CERA also did not raise any objection during its audit in 2009 and the Show Cause Notice, having been issued much thereafter, i.e, in the year 2010, there is no justifiable reason to allege suppression of facts - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/00235/2012 - Final Order No. 42081/2018 - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Appellant Shri. R. Parthasarathy, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P Dinesha, The Department is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 05.08.2011, who set aside the Order-in-Original as hit by limitation as well as on merits. 1.2 On the time bar issue, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in his order that the assessee had filed ER1 returns regularly during the disputed period, had submitted acknowledged copies of ER1 along with input service registered for the months under dispute, which clearly mention that the credit was taken on the basis of invoice issue by M/s. MRF Ltd. as an input service distributor; . R.O. vide his letter O.C. No. 438/2006 dt. 20.07.2006, had objected to availment of Cenvat Credit which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R also relies on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ruby Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., C. Ex. S.T., Hyderabad-IV - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 160 (Tri. Hyd.). 3. Per contra , Shri. R. Parthasarathy, Consultant, appearing for the assessee supports the findings of the lower appellate authority. 4. We have considered the rival contentions. 5.1 Rule 7 of CCR prescribes the manner of distribution of credit which reads as under: 7. The manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor The input service distributor may distribute the Cenvat credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or, unit providing output services, subject to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
