9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been raised for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. As 'trading' was not an exempted service during the period under dispute, the reversal of input service credit proportional the value of exempted service is not warranted. Thus, the demand confirmed in the impugned order, along with interest and penalty imposed, set aside. Invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed that all the notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation. These notices were issued in piecemeal based on various audit objections. Once a Show Cause Notice is issued proposing denial of CENVAT Credit by invoking extended period of limitation, then another notice cannot be issued on the same issue by invoking extended period again, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP [ 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it has been categorically held that once a demand has been raised for any issue by invoking the extended period of limitation, then another demand cannot be raised again by invoking the extended period on the same issue for a subsequent period - the demands confirmed in the subsequent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.19,76,334/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. The SCN bearing No. 04/ADC/BOl/12 dated 19.01.2012 was issued covering the period 2009-10, by invoking extended period of limitation. (iv) Excise Appeal No.75370 of 2020, is related to denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,66,481/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. The SCN bearing No. 12/AC/DGP-1/11-12 dated 21.12.2011 was issued covering the period 2009-10, by invoking extended period of limitation. (v) Excise Appeal No. 75406 of 2021, is related to the penalty of Rs.3,21,981/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. The SCN bearing No. 12/AC/DGP-1/11-12 dated 21.12.2011 was issued covering the period 2009-10, by invoking extended period of limitation. 3. Excise Appeal No. 70633 of 2013 is related to reversal of input service credit amounting to Rs. 1,17,41,737/-on account of availment of input service credit attributable to trading activity. The appellant submits that the SCN dated 21.03.2012 proposing reversal of proportional input services credit attributable to trading activity was issued covering the period 2007-08 to 2010-11, by invoking the extended period of limitation against them. The appellant further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not at the factory. Also, the head office has not taken registration as Input Service Distributor' (ISD). In this regard, the appellant mentions that the services were actually received and utilized at the factory only. They also submit that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the head office has not taken the ISD registration. When the receipt and utilization of the service are not in dispute, the credit available to the appellant cannot be denied on mere procedural infirmities. Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the above credit availed by them cannot be denied. The appellant further submits that the notice has been issued on the basis of audit objections raised. They have submitted that two other notices have been issued proposing to deny CENVAT Credit on the basis of audit objections and hence, the demand confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 3.2. Excise Appeal No. 79090 of 2018, is related to denial CENVAT Credit of Rs.19,76,034/- which pertains to the year 2009-10. This Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 196/ BOL-CE/ 2018-19 dated 03.08.2018. The issue involved in this appeal is denial of CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellant submits that the impugned order confirming the demand by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 3.4. Excise Appeal No. 75406 of 2021 is related to the penalty imposed of Rs.3,21,981/-. This appeal arises out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 190/BOL-CE/2020-21 dated 03.02.2021 wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and increased the penalty from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,21,981/- for the period 2009-10 (pertaining to the same proceedings as in Excise Appeal No. 75370 of 2020). 3.4.1. In this regard the Appellant have submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider the amendment of Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules; they submit that prior to 27.02.2010, the maximum penalty was Rs.2000/-. They also rely on various case-law in their grounds of appeal. The appellant therefore prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed by way of the impugned order. 3.5. In view of the above submissions, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and allowing their appeals. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hold that the demands confirmed in the subsequent notices, invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 6.3. Regarding merits of availment of credit of input services involved in these appeals, we observe that the credit has been denied on procedural grounds such as the head office has not taken the ISD registration and the invoices pertaining to the input services were not in the name of the appellant-company. We observe that when the receipt and utilization of the service are not in dispute, the credit available to the appellant cannot be denied on mere procedural infirmities. Accordingly, we observe that the above credit availed by the appellant cannot be denied. Thus, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the credit of input services availed them in the impugned orders. Since the credit is held to be eligible, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties does not arise. 6.4. Regarding the penalty enhanced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in Excise Appeal No. 75406 of 2021, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and increased the penalty from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,21,981/- for the period 2009-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
