9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord that in the month of February 2008 the appellant utilized cenvat credit account more than 20%, but, in the subsequent month i.e. March 2008 the appellant has not utilized 20% of the cenvat credit available in the cenvat credit account. If utilization of both months is taken together, in that circumstances, the appellant has utilized only 20% of the cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account - no demand is sustainable against the appellant on this issue - penalty set aside. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The appellant as claiming bonafide belief that on non taxable/exempted services, they are not required to reverse the service tax, as same has shown in their ST-3 returns. This cannot be the reason for bonafide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant cleared capital goods as such without reversal of cenvat credit. Therefore, cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 9,76,387/- was denied. The appellant has contested the said issue on the ground that the appellant have shifted capital goods from their own unit to the another unit, in that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported in 2013 (1) TMI 142 CESTAT Chennai, they are not required to reverse the cenvat credit as the appellant themselves are shifting goods from one unit to the another unit. Therefore, they will not any impact for reversal of cenvat credit and taking cenvat credit at the unit where the units have been transferred the goods and it is revenue neutrality. 3. On this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the appeal. Therefore, I hold that cenvat credit of ₹ 10,62,700/- is not required to be reversed. For that, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 4. The show cause notice also proposed to recovery in terms of Rule 6 (3)(C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the appellant is providing taxable as well as exempted service, therefore, period prior to 01.04.2008 the appellant is restricted to avail cenvat credit upto 20% of the cenvat credit available in their cenvat credit account whereas during the period February 2008, the appellant has utilized more than 20% of the cenvat credit account for payment of service tax. Therefore, to that extent they are required to pay the said amount. 5. It is fact on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case, the appellant as claiming bonafide belief that on non taxable/exempted services, they are not required to reverse the service tax, as same has shown in their ST-3 returns. This cannot be the reason for bonafide belief when law is clear from 01.04.2008. As on 01.04.2008 law has been changed for the period of availment of cenvat credit restricted to 20%, but, post on 01.04.2008 law has been changed and they are required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit or to pay 8/6% of the value of the exempted services. In that circumstances, bonafide of the appellant are absent. Therefore, the demand is rightly confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation for non reversal of proportionate cenvat credit of exempted service or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
