9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... output services. The manner of availment and utilization of cenvat credit is contained in sub-rule (1) and (4) of Rule 3 ibid respectively. Clause (e) in sub-rule (4) ibid provides for utilization of cenvat credit for payment of service tax on any output service. However, an explanation clause was appended in the said sub-rule vide Notification No. 28/2012- C.E. (N.T.), dated 20.06.2012, w.e.f. 01.07.2012, providing the restrictions that cenvat credit cannot be used for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is the service recipient. Since, as a recipient of taxable service, the appellant had utilized the cenvat credit; such utilization was disputed by the department. Since, the period of utiliza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment/utilization of such credit was disputed by the department on the ground that as a recipient of service, cenvat credit cannot be used for payment of service tax on the output service. In this context, the show cause proceedings initiated by the department were adjudicated vide order dated 28.03.2018, wherein the learned original authority had dropped the demand proposed for recovery in the show cause notice. Against such adjudication order, the department had filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2018 (for short, referred to as the impugned order ). Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises Ltd. 2010-TIOL-868-HC-P H-ST (vi) Kansara Modler Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II- 2013 (32) S.T.R. 209 (Tri.-Del.) (vii) Tata Aig Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai Thane-II 2015 (37) S.T.R. 570 (Tri.-Mumbai) (viii) Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2016 (44) S.T.R. 465 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ix) Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. J35 (S.C.) (x) K-Air Speciality Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2017(4) G.S.T.L. 379 (Tri.-Mumbai). 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was appended in the said sub-rule vide Notification No. 28/2012- C.E. (N.T.), dated 20.06.2012, w.e.f. 01.07.2012, providing the restrictions that cenvat credit cannot be used for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is the service recipient. Since, as a recipient of taxable service, the appellant had utilized the cenvat credit; such utilization was disputed by the department. On examination of the explanation clause inserted in subservice rule (4) ibid, it transpires that there is no ambiguity in interpreting the wordings used therein. The legislative mandate behind insertion of such clause is manifest to restrict utilization of cenvat credit for payment of service tax on the output taxable se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
