Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (12) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rcise of option in terms of Rule 6(3A) of the said Rule was not given to the jurisdictional officer. 2. Briefly stated, fact of the case is that Appellant is a manufacturer as well as trader having two separate registration taken for its warehouse located at Chakan where trading activities were undertaken and at Pimpri, located 15 Kms. away from Chakan, where manufacturing activities were undertaken. According to Appellant, it had claimed CENVAT Credit only on the duty paid on capital goods, inputs and Service Tax paid under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for inputs used for manufacture of dutiable goods namely Hydraulic Pumps, Cylinders, Valves, Power Units, etc. but it had not availed any credit in respect of goods and services .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudication order which is assailed herein in this appeal by the unsuccessful assessee. 3. During course of hearing of the appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate submitted with reference to case laws of Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2015 (40) STR 381 (Tri-Mumbai), Sahar Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. CCE & Cus. reported in 2018 (4) TMI 1330-CESTAT, Mumbai, Seth Construction Vs. CCGST, Mumbai (South) reported in 2018 (8) TMI 1399-CESTAT, Mumbai, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2020 (9) TMI 503-CESTAT Mumbai, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai reported in 2018 (363) ELT 1050 (Tri-Mum), Alstom T&D India Ltd. Vs. Commis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctly as well. He also challenged the legality of the findings of the Commissioner in respect of no exercise of option in stating that the requirement to file an option later is applicable only in cases where an assesse is exercising option under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and no such requirement for exercising any option for paying an amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(iii) was available in the statute itself, for which the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department, Shri P. K. Acharya, argued that the very fact of availing CENVAT Credit on common services is evident from the fact of reversal of CENVAT Credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner is uncalled for. 5. We have gone through the case record and written note of submissions made by the adversaries. At the outset we must draw attention of all concern to the repeated pleading of the Appellant made in response to the Show-cause in the form of a reply dated 19.08.2013 and at subsequent stages wherein Appellant had clearly demonstrated that only in respect of purchase of services and goods for the manufacturing plant, CENVAT Credit was taken on inputs and input services and not in respect of trading operations at Pimpri, which is separately recorded in the respective sites in the Oracle software (para 2.5 & 2.6 at appeal memo page number 97). Further at page 99 of the appeal memo under para 3 Appellant has clearly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eet of the Company records the financial transactions including Profit & Loss, Assets & Liability of the entire Company and it has got nothing to do with availment of services which are recorded in the accounting package, as such, separately. 6. At this point we intend to record that the issue is no more res integra in view of consistent decisions of this Tribunal that has attained finality with the approval of various Appellate Courts that Rule 6(3)(i) ibid cannot be made automatically applicable on failure to intimate in writing about options to be availed by the assessee but here the facts are completely different in the sense that Appellant disputed the demand saying that it had not availed any common input services for its trading act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates