9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Polyurethane Cushion' falling under Chapter 94 of CETA, 1985 and are also registered with Service Tax for rendering/receiving various services like 'Goods Transport Agency Service, Security Services' covered under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are availing the facility of cenvat credit on input / input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and utilizing the same for payment of central excise duty. During the course of audit, for the period from 11/2013 to 12/2014, it was observed that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess paid on the imported goods to the extent of Rs. 3,05,426/- on the basis of the Dealer Invoices issued by M/s. Dow Chemicals Interna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submitted that proviso of extended period was not mentioned in the show-cause notice. Further the appellant has been filing the return every month showing the CENVAT credit. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989(40) ELT 276 (SC)] ii. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE [1994(74) ELT 9 (SC)] iii. Continental Foundation JV Vs. CCE [2007(216) ELT 17 (SC)] 4.2. He further submitted that on merits also, the CENVAT credit has been wrongly denied on education cess and secondary higher education cess which was paid by the appellant on the Dealers Invoices issued by M/s. Dow Chemicals International Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that it is not disputed that as per No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions of both sides and perusal of records, I find that the appellants have taken the CENVAT credit on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. Dow Chemicals International Pvt. Ltd. The appellants have paid the education cess and secondary higher education cess even though as per Notification No.14/2012 dt. 17/03/2012, they were not required to pay the same. Further I find that the appellants have taken the credit on the basis of valid invoices issued by the dealer and Department cannot question the taking of the credit at the receivers end even if some irregularities are there at the end of the dealer. Further I find that substantial demand is also barred by limitation as there is no suppression on the part of the appellant as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
