9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation - HELD THAT:- No case has been made out by the department for invoking extended period of limitation in as much as mere not indicating the formula adopted for distribution of cenvat credit does not amount to suppression of facts as there was no obligation upon the assessee to disclose the formula adopted by them. Therefore, even on limitation we rule in favour of the assessee. There is also a force in the argument of the assessee that the cenvat credit distributed by the ISD cannot be modified by a recipient of the ISD invoices namely appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 40205 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40853 / 2019 - Dated:- 14-6-2019 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER (J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities and hence this appeal. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants contested the demands both on merit and limitation. On merit, it is the contention of the Ld. counsel that Rule 7 of CCR 2004 had sub-rule (a) and sub-rule (b) upto 1.4.2012 when sub-rule (c) and sub-rule (d) were also notified. By this amendment, a special formula for distribution of cenvat credit by ISD to various units has been incorporated in the rule itself. Prior to that date, there was no requirement of adopting any particular formula for distribution of cenvat credit among different units by the ISD. As the period in question was prior to 1.4.2012, no formula was required to be adopted as per the rule. The assessee was free to adopt any meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility to disclose any information the same need not be disclosed by them. In view of the above, the demand fails on the ground of limitation also. 5. Ld.D.R reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and asserts that the demands were correctly raised. 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The main allegation in the SCN is that the ISD has wrongly distributed the service tax credit by not following the principle of proportionate to the turnover of sales. Rule 7 of CCR 2004 as applicable during the relevant period and upto 01.04.2012 read as follows : 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. ―The input service distributor may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be distributed pro rata on the basis of the turnover of the concerned unit to the sum total of the turnover of all the units to which the service relates. As can be seen from the above, with effect from 1.4.2012, a specific formula was given in the rule regarding distribution of cenvat credit among various units by the ISD. Prior to this date, no such formula was indicated and therefore the ISD was free to distribute cenvat credit as deemed fit. This rule position has been made clear in the following judgments : (i) CCE Vs Dashion Ltd. - 2014 (41) STR 884 (Guj.) (ii) CCE Jaipur Vs National Engineering Industries Ltd. 2016 (42) STR 945 (Raj.) We, therefore, find in the present case the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
