9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an intimation thereof to the department vide letter dated 30.06.2011 and has also reversed the proportionate Cenvat credit of Rs. 28,32,413/- for the Year 2011-12 under intimation to the department vide letter dated 29.06.2012. Financial Year 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- The amount of Cenvat credit was not supposed to be reversed vis- -vis Management Consultancy Services. The original adjudicating authority also in Para 4.4.1 in sub-para 2 has held that appellant to be entitled to avail 100% credit of the same irrespective of their utilization in taxable or non-taxable service during the period under question. However, relief has been denied as the said sub-rule (5) was omitted vide Notification No. 3/2011. However, it is observed that the said notification is dated 01.03.2011 which omits sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The period in question is March 2010 to March 2011 which means the notification has wrongly been applied by the adjudicating authority for denying the availment of 100% credit on the Management Consultancy Services. April 2012 to June 2012 - HELD THAT:- The amount of Rs. 4,65,651/- as claimed as re-credit by the appellant against exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that the appellant has Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,11,22,936/- during the Financial Year 2010-11 and of Rs. 1,42,31,299/- during 2012-13. The Cenvat credit on the said amounts have been worked out at Rs. 28,42,027/- and Rs. 32,22,660/- for the respective financial year. However, department has worked out the same at Rs. 97,67,158/- and Rs. 36,32,862/- (Rs.20,17,121 + Rs.16,15,741/-) respectively. Based on these observations, it is alleged that the appellant has short paid an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit attributable to exempted services amounting to Rs. 73,35,333/- during the Financial Year 2010-11 and 2012-13 thereby contravening the provisions of sub rule 2 and 3 of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The excess credit availed of Rs. 73,35,333/- is proposed to be recovered from the appellant along with the interest vide Show Cause Notice No. 115/2015 dated 06.08.2015. The said proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 39-16-17 dated 07.11.2016. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Sanjiv Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative for the respondent. 3. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand has reiterated the findings arrived at by the Commissioner in the order under challenged. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and perusing the case record, we observe following to be the admitted facts: (i) Appellant is holding service tax registration for providing various taxable services like Management Consultancy Services, Internet Cafe Services and Mandap Keeper Services. (ii) The appellant is also rendering few services which are exempted from payment of tax. (iii) The appellant is not maintaining the separate register for the inputs used in providing taxable as well as exempted services like Food Sale in Restaurants, Boarding and Lodging facilities of guests etc. (iv) Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been complied with by the appellant. (v) While applying Rule 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 appellant had reversed the proportionate Cenvat Credit of Rs. 28,42,027/- for the Year 2010-11 with an intimation thereof to the department vide letter dated 30.06.2011 and has also reversed the proportionate Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said notification is dated 01.03.2011 which omits sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The period in question is March 2010 to March 2011 which means the notification has wrongly been applied by the adjudicating authority for denying the availment of 100% credit on the Management Consultancy Services. 7.2 April 2012 to June 2012 7.2.1 We observe that the amount of Rs. 4,65,651/- as claimed as re-credit by the appellant against excess reversal in previous Financial Year has already been denied to be subjected to proportionate reversal in the ratio of exempted services provided in the subsequent period. As has been observed in Para 4.5 of the Order-in-Original/order under challenge, the already reversed Cenvat credit under intimation to the department has also been acknowledged by the adjudicating authority in the said para itself. The proportionate value of Cenvat credit has already been reduced. We do not find any reason to interfere with those findings. 7.3 July 2012 to March 2013 7.3.1 The submission of appellant with respect to the demand for this period is that the Wi-fi Services availed during this period were exclusively used in pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
