9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. HELD THAT:- In the present case there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant though had availed the CENVAT credit while filing the ST- 3 return on 24.04.2011. However, subsequently vide a revised return of 14.06.2011, the credit availed was reversed. The only condition for availing the amount under the Notification No. 1/2006 was the non-availment of CENVAT Credit. There has been a catena of decisions wherein it has been held that reversal is the sufficient compliance of the aforesaid condition of the said Notification. In M/S. PUNJ LLOYD LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S. T., ROHTAK [ 2015 (10) TMI 2294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] where it was held that Benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST granted on final product since reversal of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The present is an appeal filed to assail the order-in-appeal No. 550/2016 dated 05.01.2017. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing taxable service falling under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 as applicable during the relevant period. The Anti-evasion Branch of Central Excise Division, Kota, gathered an intelligence that the appellant have availed Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and has simultaneously claimed 75% abatement in value of service provided, in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, as amended, and has filed ST-3 Return for the Half Year ending on March, 2011 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties we observe and hold as follow: (i) The issue involved in the present case is: Whether the benefit of 75% of abatement from taxable value extended vide Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as amended, can be denied on the ground that the service provider has once taken and utilised the CENVAT Credit on input/input service, irrespective the same was subsequently reversed and was paid in cash subsequently and filed revised return was also within prescribed time period. (ii) We observe that Rule 7B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 has been framed with an intent to give an opportunity to any assessee to correct a mistake or omission, if any, occurred. Rule 7B reads as follows: Rule 7B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 1/2006ST after reversal of the CENVAT credit taken on input services along with interest, it needs to be appreciated that in the notification No. 15/2004-ST there was no bar against taking CENVAT credit of input services. When the said notification was superseded by Notification No. 1/2006-ST an additional condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit on input services was also introduced. It is thus possible that initially this may have escaped the attention of the appellant. No prudent person would take the risk of being saddled with a demand of almost Rs. 14 crores merely for input service credit of just above Rs. 32 lakhs. As regards the possible argument that there is no equity in taxation and exemption Notifications have to be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has no direct applicability to the issue at hand. The CESTAT judgement in the case of Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers (supra) cited by ld. Departmental Representative was in relation to service tax liability of main contractor vis-a-vis sub-contractor and hence is not germane to the issue at hand. As regards the other judgement Dilip Chhabria Designs [2015-TIOL-851-HCMum- CX],= 2015 (323) ELT 565 (Bom.)] cited by Revenue to distinguish the judgement in the case of Hello Minerals (supra), we find that the facts in that case were very different in as much as in that case the assessee did not reverse the credit at the time of removal of goods or after removal . Without dwelling further on the subject, we may only add that as on today the judgement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 225 again applying the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Company (supra) held that reversal of credit was sufficient for availing the benefits of the notification. In fact the Tribunal has directed the assessee therein to reverse the credit. In other words, the credit was directed to be reversed at the Tribunal stage. 11. We find no reason to differ from these decisions, as a result we hold that the adjudicating authority below has failed to observe the settled proposition of law despite that the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case of M/s Chanderpur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd. [1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC)] was being cited by the original adjudicating authority. We resultantly set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
