2020 (3) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The interest for the differential period may have to be calculated and recovered. Ld. Commissioner should also examine the claim that there was no demand in terms of revised Rule 6(3)(c) of CCR, 2004 - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the respondent ORDER PER: MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. 37/2011 (MP), dated 20.06.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Sravan Shipping Services are registe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted services. It appeared that the appellant was not maintaining separate records and have utilised CENVAT Credit in excess of 35% up to September 2004, 20% of service tax payable from September 2004 to 31.03.2008 and in excess of 8% of the value of exempted services from 01.04.2008. A show cause notice was issued demanding recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit along with interest. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed under Rule 15(4) of CCR 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. After following due process, the Ld. Commissioner, by the impugned order, confirmed an amount of ₹ 55,43,101/- as irregularly availed CENVAT Credit utilised by the assessee. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 04. There is no demand in terms of the amended Rule 6(3)(c) for the period after 01.04.2008. Therefore, the demand for this period cannot be confirmed. 6. Ld. DR supports the impugned order. 7. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Commissioner should be given an opportunity to examine the issue from the point of view of the appellant's eligibility to avail the CENVAT Credit and utilise it after 01.04.2008. If the appellant is so eligible, the only mistake of the appellant is utilising the CENVAT Credit well in advance of the date when he was not entitled to utilise it. Accordingly, interest for the differential period may have to be calculated and recovered. Ld. Commissioner shoul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X