9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ela, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has disallowed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1,35,91,278/- availed by M/s. Prabhu Sponge Private Ltd. (herein after referred as 'the appellant') on the service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism in the same month as of the liability, in respect of the transport of goods services for the F.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. He also demanded interest as computed u/s 11AB/11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed Penalty of Rs. 1,35,91,278/- under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The Appellant, M/s Prabhu Sponge (P). Ltd, is engaged in the business of manufacture of Sponge Iron under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued alleging wrongful availment of Input Service Credit amounting to Rs. 1,35,91,278 during the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 before paying service tax. The appellant referred Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and contended that CENVAT Credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which the invoice or challan referred to in Rule 9 has been raised. The Appellant further relies on Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which show that CENVAT credit can be taken by the manufacturer or provider of output service or input service distributor based on the documents referred to in clauses (a) to (g). Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, inter alia, allows a manufacturer to claim CENVAT Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of input services availed by them and its utilisation thereof. It is their submission that although they have availed the CENVAT Credit during the relevant period, they have not utilised the credit for the payment of any other liabilities for the said month. Thus, there is no obligation on the Appellant to pay any tax or interest. 3.4. In support of their claim, the appellant relied on the decision of CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of National Aluminium Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I (2024) 16 Centax 59 (Tri.-Cal), wherein after discussing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (S.C), it was held that no interest is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is also disclosed in ER 1 return by the Appellant. Thus, we observe that the allegation of availment of CENVAT Credit without payment cannot arise as the payment is done within the due date of payment of service tax which is also visible from the table set out in the demand order. We observe that there is no dispute with respect to the genuineness of input services availed by them. Thus, we hold that the appellant is eligible to avail the credit and the allegation in this regard in the impugned order is not sustainable. 6.2. The next allegation in the impugned order is that the appellant has utilized the credit before making payment of the service tax. We observe that if the appellant has utilized the credit before making the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
