9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or proportionate distribution was introduced subsequently vide Notification No. 18/2012-C.E. (N.T.). Thus, it is observed that during the relevant period there was no requirement of establishing one to one correlation. Accordingly, the denial of Cenvat credit in the impugned order is not sustainable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed for the period March 2005 to March 2009. The SCN in this case was issued 24.02.2010. There is no evidence brought on record to substantiate the allegation that suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of tax exists in this case. Thus, the extended period cannot be invoked to deny the credit in this case - the impugned order confirming the demand by invoking extended period of limitation is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Gopal Agarwal, Smt. Pritha Sarkar , both Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER K. ANPAZHAKAN : The present appeal has been filed against the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Ex., Bangalore-I Versus Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (277) E.L.T. 317 (Kar.)] (ii) Nestle India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex., Goa [2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 294 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (iii) Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur vs National Engineering Industries Ltd [2016 (42) S.T.R. 945 (Raj.) 3.2. The appellant also submits that Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 wherein various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts have been accepted with an objective to reduce litigation and dispose of the cases on similar questions of law or identical case on facts pending with the department. In the said circular, the Board has accepted the decision of Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur vs National Engineering Industries Ltd [2016 (42) S.T.R. 945 (Raj.)] . The Circular dated 16th February 2018 issued by CBEC accepting the decision of High Court of Gujarat in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd is binding on the department. 3.3. The appellant also submits that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation of time inasmuch as the demand has been raised in respect of period March 2005 to March 2009 vide SCN dated 24.02.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g output service, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; (b) credit of service tax attributable to service used by one or more units exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed; (c) credit of service tax attributable to service used wholly by a unit shall be distributed only to that unit; and (d) credit of service tax attributable to service used in more than one unit shall be distributed prorata on the basis of the turnover of the concerned unit to the sum total of the turnover of all the units to which the service relates Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this rule, unit includes the premises of a provider of output service and the premises of a manufacturer including the factory, whether registered or otherwise. Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this rule, the total turnover shall be determined in the same manner as determined under rule 5. 6.1. A conjoint reading of Rule 7 existed prior to issue of Notification 18/2012 CE(NT) and after issue of the notification would clearly rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and in the absence of any provision of one-to-one correlation the credit can be distributed to any factory of one company. This issue has been considered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) ... 6.4. In the case of Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur vs National Engineering Industries Ltd [2016 (42) S.T.R. 945 (Raj.), the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court dismissed the department s appeal holding that 9. Rule 7 pertains to manner of distribution of credit by input service distributer. At the relevant time, this Rule 7 permitted input service distributor to distribute Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the two conditions, viz :- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; (b) credit of service tax attributable to service [used by one or more units] exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted service shall not be distributed. 10. It was only later on that additional condition by way of Clause (d) of Rule 7 was added, which reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
