2019 (6) TMI 1610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntee. We note, the Board s clarification is applicable to the facts of the present case. Identical set of facts came up for decision before the Tribunal in many cases. In appellant s own case the matter has been decided holding that no reversal of credit under Rule 14 can be ordered in such situation. The legal position stands settled in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue - the objection raised by the Department is not sustainable and the appellant is legally entitled to CENVAT credit - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri Rajeev Agarwal, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER The facts of the case in brief are that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the service providers. The amount of service tax originally charged by the service providers has not been varied or modified, while making retention of the basic invoice amount. The entire service tax charged on the invoice has been paid to the service providers. He further submitted that in their case, there would be no applicability of the Rule 4(7) of the CCR, inasmuch as that the restrictions contained in the above provisions would only apply when both the value of service and service tax charged on the invoice have not been paid to the service provider. He also stated that it is not the case where the assessee has availed CENVAT credit of the service tax which has not been deposited to the Government treasury. Credit has been availe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as below: "5. The facts of the case are not in dispute. We note that the original authority after referring to the above mentioned circular of the Board distinguished the same and disallowed the credit of service tax attributable to consideration not paid by the appellant. We note, in the present case, the appellants retained a portion of the consideration towards service rendered by the service provider in terms of contract towards performance guarantee. We note, the Board's clarification is applicable to the facts of the present case. Identical set of facts came up for decision before the Tribunal in many cases. In appellant's own case the matter has been decided holding that no reversal of credit under Rule 14 can be order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X