9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the manufacturer or producer of final product or provider of output services is entitled to take the credit of duty paid on various inputs as also input services. Further in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 manner of utilization of Cenvat credit is prescribed. In terms of sub-rule (4), the credit availed by an assessee can be utilised for payment of duty of excise on any final product or payment of Service Tax on any output service. There is no distinction in the said sub-rule that the credit relatable to the input service used for manufacture shall be used only for payment of duty on the manufactured goods and the credit availed in respect of input services used for providing output services would be used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is a manufacturer as also a service provider. They were also availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and input services. The said credit availed by them was being utilised for payment of duty of excise as also for payment of Service Tax on the output services. 3. By entertaining a view that the input and input services credit availed by the appellant can be utilised only for payment of duty of excise on the manufactured product and cannot be utilised for payment of Service Tax on output service, proceedings were initiated by issuance of a show cause notice dated 6-10-2016 proposing to deny the credit of ₹ 51,95,000/- availed and utilised during the period April, 2011 to March, 2015. The said show cause notice stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of input services used for providing output services would be used only for payment of Service Tax. In the absence of any such distinction made in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the reasoning of the authorities below cannot be upheld. 6. Apart from merits of the case we also note that the demand stands raised against the appellant by invoking the longer period of limitation. Admittedly the appellant was filing all the requisite returns with the Revenue indicating the credit earned by them and so utilised. The Revenue has not referred to any evidence on record to show that there was any mala fide on the part of the assessee, except the fact that such availment and utilization was to be reflected in ER-1 return and the same sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
