9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing process or provision of services and it has not excluded input service provider (ISD) from its purview since Rule 7 also states that ISD would distribute cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service or outsource manufacturing units. Rule 6(5), as was existing during the relevant period, is applicable to the appellant and the benefit of the same was not extended to the appellant. Further there are three contradictory calculation sheets given in the show cause and by the lower authorities which is required to be reassessed on the basis of available records. This is a fit case which requires re-adjudication - appeal is allowed by way of remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Baddi plant. Appellant was put to show cause, matter was adjudicated upon and duty demand along with interest, equivalent penalty were confirmed against which Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner who re-quantified the duty demand as ₹ 26.32 lacs and confirmed interest as well as penalty of 6.32 lakhs u/s 78 and also confirmed penalty of ₹ 5000/- u/s 77. Appellant is before this Tribunal challenging legality of the said order. 3. In the Memo of appeal and during course of hearing of appeal, Learned Counsel Shri R.M. Patkar for the Appellant submitted that Appellant had not provided any exempted service and reversed Cenvat Credit in proportion to turnover of their dutiable goods and exempted goods manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to ₹ 6.32 lakhs and justified inapplicability of Rule 6(5) CCR 2004 to ISD, as the same is meant for manufacturer/service provider for which he sought for no interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard from both sides at length on the other day and perused case record as well as relevant provision contained in Rule 6(5) and judicial decisions referred by the Appellant. Admittedly erstwhile Rule 6(5) started with notwithstanding the provision contained in sub rule (1), (2) (3). So, while allowing credit of whole service tax paid on sub-clause (g), (p), (q), (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzh), (zzi), (zza), (zzq) (zzr) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit in respect of service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service or outsource manufacturing units. This being the dictate of statute and ISD arrangement being designed to distribute cenvat credit to manufacturing and service providing units, I am of the considered view that Rule 6(5), as was existing during the relevant period, is applicable to the appellant and the benefit of the same was not extended to the appellant. Further there are three contradictory calculation sheets given in the show cause and by the lower authorities which is required to be reassessed on the basis of available records. Therefore, I find it a fit case which requires re-adjudication in terms of the above findings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
