9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof. For inputs used in the manufacturing of exempted goods, the appellant is maintaining separate accounts and not availing any CENVAT Credit on the said inputs. There were certain common services which were availed by the appellant for providing taxable services as well as manufacturing exempted goods. Services namely, security services, bank charges, AMC for fax machines/intercom systems, etc., are covered under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on which the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit at 100%, although they were providing taxable output services and manufacturing exempted goods. Therefore, on the said services, no reversal is required by the appellant. The appellant had utilized CENVAT Credit within 20% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exclusively attributable to taxable services provided. As regards the activity of making pottery handicrafts, no tax element was involved in the inputs used in making the said handicrafts and thus no CENVAT Credit was taken thereon. Further, no input services were used for making the said handicrafts. 2.2. However, there were certain common input services for which credit was availed by the appellant during the relevant period. 3. An audit was conducted in May, 2011 to verify the records of the appellant for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, on the basis of which certain demands of Service Tax were raised the appellant, which the appellant paid. 3.1. Subsequently, on 04.11.2011 and 27.01.2012, some letters were issued to the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Show Cause Notice has been raised on incorrect facts and interpretation of law; the very fact that the manufacturing activity of pottery handicrafts carried on at different premises was treated as exempted service in the impugned Show Cause Notice as well as in the impugned order, reflects the gross misunderstanding of facts and vagueness of the Show Cause Notice; the pottery handicrafts manufactured by the appellant are exempted goods which are exempt from payment of excise duty under Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. dated 10.02.1986. 6.2. He further contended that when common credit for the financial year 2006-07 to 2009-10 was merely Rs.85,859/-, the impugned order confirming the disproportionate demand of Rs.71,19,846/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year 2006-07 and Rs.13,850/- for the financial year 2007- 08), is within the limit of 20% of Service Tax payable as prescribed under Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. c. For the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10, there was excess availment of CENVAT Credit on common input services which were identified and proportionately reversed in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest. On reversal of the excess credit, the appellant has obtained certificate from a Chartered Accountant. 6.4. It is submitted by the appellant that however, without considering the submissions of the appellant, the impugned demands have been confirmed, which are required to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
