9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at any point of time before any forum provided it does not require any further adjudication of any disputed fact. Moreover the Tax Research Unit of the Ministry of Finance s letter, D.O.F. No 334/1/2012-TRU Dated: March 16, 2012 by Jt. Secretary (TRU), states that Rule 6(6A) of the Cenvat Credit rules, introduced vide Notification 3/2011-CE (NT), dated 01/03/2011, is being given effect from February 10, 2006. This being so Cenvat Credit was not required to be reversed for the supply of taxable service without payment of tax to SEZ. The letter itself states that retrospective effect was meant to neutralize the investigations or demands for reversal of credits in respect of services provided to SEZs for the past. A benefit which is being give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued to the appellant demanding an amount of Rs.48,05,217/- towards service tax payable in terms of Rule 6(3) of the said Rules along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. After due process of law, the learned Original Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 r/w section 78 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under sec. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the order impugned herein upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned Shri V. Sundararajan, Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 6(6A) of the Cenvat Credit rules, introduced last year vide Notification 3/2011-CE (NT), dated 01/03/2011, is being given effect from February 10, 2006. This will neutralize the investigations or demands for reversal of credits in respect of services provides to SEZs for the past. Substantive right of the appellant cannot be denied by taking pedantic view. He further stated that for the subsequent period i.e. October 2010 to March 2011 the learned adjudicating authority in the appellant's own case had vide Order in Original No. 77/2014 dated 03/09/2014 held that consequent to the introduction of sub-rule 6A of Rule 6 ibid vide Notification No. 03/2011-CE(NT) dated 01/03/2011 and its retrospective application from 10.2.2006 onwards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
