9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 23.08.2016 stating that renting of premises at unit no. 67 has no nexus with the output service which is provided by the assessee from unit no. 65. Admittedly, appellant has reversed the credit basing on Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in proportion to its dutiable and exempted services. This being the factual position and the documents on record, it cannot be said that appellant is to be penalised twice by invoking alternate provisions of the statute - In the instant case, appellant’s premises appears to be one and same having different room numbers as throughout the case record, room number and premises number are used interchangeably - availment of cenvat credit against renting of premises number 67 is admissible. Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut as because appellant was also engaged in the manufacture of polymer compound and trading of synthetic rubber etc., vide another show-cause notice, corresponding to the same period, it was asked to reverse proportionate cenvat credit attributable to trading of goods in view of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and it did so. He strongly argued that when the department itself has asked for reversal of cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, it should not have refused credit on renting of premises. Referring to the orders-in-original passed in respect of both the show-cause notices vide annexure 7 and 8, the ld. Counsel for the appellant also argued that principle of equity and fair play demand that the department sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the judicial decisions submitted by the adversaries and both the order-in-originals that arose from the same audit report findings. In the order-in-original concerning reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(1), the adjudicating authority vide order dated 23.08.2016 in para 15 has given his finding that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence to support the claim that premises no. 67 is not used for providing exempted services or manufacturing activities and ultimately he confirmed the reversal of proportionate credit as demanded in the show-cause. If this is the finding of the adjudicating authority, it is not understood as to how, he being the same person in position passed another order just two days before o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
