9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 64,698/- alongwith interest and informed the department. Once the appellant has reversed the wrongly availed cenvat credit alongwith interest it would amount to as if no credit has been availed as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. [ 1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT ] and subsequently followed by various Tribunals and the High Courts. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of service tax amounting to Rs.77,74,607/- by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that during the period from 18.4.2006 to 30.09.2008, the appellant had wrongly claimed abatement amounting to Rs.6,30,09,592/-. It was further alleged that the abatement claimed by the appellant in terms of Notification No. 15/04-ST dated 10.09.2004 was not admissible to them as during the relevant period Notification No.1/2006 dated 01.03.2006 was in operation, which did not allow abatement, if cenvat credit including Cenvat Credit on input services has been availed. It was alleged that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on input services amounting to Rs.64,698/- by showing it as credit on inputs. The Department has also alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has the effect as if no credit has been availed. For this submission, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector 1996 (81) ELT 81 (SC) and Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2004 (174) ELT 422. 4.1 He further submits that the law on this point has been settled and the Tribunal and the High Courts have consistently held that the benefit of abatement Notification 1/2006-ST cannot be denied to the assessee on the ground that they had availed cenvat credit. He relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Khyati Tours & Travels Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Ahemdabad 2011(24)STR 456 (Tri-Ahmd) (ii) Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex ST Rohtak 2015 (40) STR 1028 (Tri- Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.03.2006 was in operation which did not allow abatement if cenvat credit including cenvat credit on input services has been availed. 6.1 Further, we find that the appellant has admitted that they have wrongly availed cenvat credit of Rs. 64,698/- because of the mistake committed by their newly appointed staff who was not aware of the Notification No. 1/2006 dated 01.03.2006. 6.2 Further, we find that subsequently, the appellant reversed the cenvat credit of Rs. 64,698/- alongwith interest and informed the department. Once the appellant has reversed the wrongly availed cenvat credit alongwith interest it would amount to as if no credit has been availed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal's stage." We find that the judgment of Allahabad High Court had taken into account the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Indeed in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that "we see no reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product". This observation in no way necessarily implies that the Supreme Court would have necessarily found it unacceptable if a debit entry in the credit account was made after removal of the exempted goods, particularly when such debit entry reversed the Cenvat credit along with interest before the primary adjudication. Seen in this light the distinguishing effort by CESTAT in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
