9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod i.e., from October 2009 to March 2014, the demands confirmed by the department against the respondent itself, on identical set of facts, was appealed against by the respondent before this Tribunal [ 2017 (5) TMI 889 - CESTAT MUMBAI ], the Tribunal has set aside the demand and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent. It is found that appeal filed by Revenue against the said order dated 29.03.2017 of the Tribunal was also dismissed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court [ 2018 (12) TMI 1300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. Conclusion - On plain reading of Rule 7 as existing both pre and post amendment 2012 covering period involved in these proceedings, the respondent - assessee was entitled to utilize the CENVAT credit available at its Pune unit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered with the service tax department as a service provider. The respondent discharges appropriate service tax liability on provision of such service. During the disputed period, the respondent had entered into agreement with the foreign principal. In terms of the said agreement, the foreign principal supplies technical know-how, technical information and knowledge etc., for undertaking the coating activity. The respondent pays royalty and technical knowhow fees to the foreign principal and being a recipient of service in India, it had paid the service tax for credit into the Central Government account in terms of Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 under the reversed charge me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst by the respondent before this Tribunal and vide order dated 29.03.2017, the Tribunal has set aside the demand and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent. We find that appeal filed by Revenue against the said order dated 29.03.2017 of the Tribunal was also dismissed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2018. The relevant paragraphs recorded in the said judgement are extracted herein below: 8. It would be appropriate that we reproduce Rule 7 as existing prior to 2012 and post 2012 which is as under:- Rule 7 as Existing Prior to 2012:- RULE 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor - The input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post amendment, it would be noticed that both provisions give an option to the assessee concerned whether to distribute input services tax available to it amongst its other manufacturing units which are providing output services. This is evident from the use of word may distribute the CENVAT credit is found in Rule 7 both prior and also post 2012. Thus, from the reading of the Rules, the option was available to the assessee whether to distribute the CENVAT credit or not. In fact, our attention is invited to Rule 7 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 as substituted w.e.f. 1.4.2016 which has made it mandatory for distribution of input services to the various units providing output services. This is evidence by the use of words shall distribute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
