9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 6(3A), the time-limit as prescribed in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply. In the present case, the re-credit is an adjustment/correction of the excess reversal which was not required to be made by them. The appellants are not eligible to take suo motu re-credit of an amount of ₹ 20,83,773/-. So also, the allegation of the department that the credit ought to have been take before 30th of June of the succeeding year is without any basis in the facts of this case as it is not reversal of proportionate credit but only re-credit of the credit which was not required to be reversed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.41204 of 2018 – SM - Final Order No. 41711/2021 - Dated:- 20- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural produce even after introduction of negative list and hence continued to treat the service of storage and warehousing of rice as an exempted service. Since appellants were providing exempted and taxable services, the credit availed on common input services used for providing the exempted services and taxable service, was required to be reversed proportionately in terms of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The proportionate credit to be reversed is calculated for each financial year and adjusted before 30th of June of succeeding year. The excess reversal made, if any, is taken re-credit before this date. In such manner, in the year 2013, appellants had taken re-credit of excess reversal to the tune of ₹ 2,395/-, before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show-cause notice was issued raising these allegations and for recovery of the wrongly availed re-credit along with interest and also for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel Shri G. Natarajan explained the facts of the case and submitted that the appellants had intimated the department vide letter dated 29.03.2014 that they have availed the re-credit of ₹ 20,83,773/- which is the amount that was not required to be reversed as the activity of storage and warehousing of rice was not an exempted service for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules, 2004. When Notification No.4/2014 made the Storage and Warehousing Services of rice to be exempted services, the said service became taxable for the period 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014. The appellants had been reversing the proportionate credit on the common input services availed by them. When the reversal/adjustment is made under Rule 6(3A), the time-limit as prescribed in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply. In the present case, the re-credit is an adjustment/correction of the excess reversal which was not required to be made by them. The decision of the Hon ble High court of Madras in M/s. ICMC Corporation Ltd., (supra) has held that the assessee is eligible to take suo motu credit. Following the said decision, I find no g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
