TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clearance made to SEZ units. But after issuance of the show cause notice, the appellant has paid the service tax on the exempted service along with interest. Therefore, when the appellant has paid the service tax alongwith interest, it cannot be said that the appellant has availed the benefit of Notification No. 4/2004-ST. Further, more over we find that by insertion of Rule 6(6A) to the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein service tax demand of ₹ 69,44,352/- along with interest and various amount of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 have been confirmed against the appellant for the period 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2008 restricting the utilization of credit to 20% of the Tax and payable on output service as provided under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was also made. The show cause notice was adjudicated, converted into impugned order, therefore the appellant is before us. 2. The Ld. Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and submits that after issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant had paid the service tax on exempted service i.e. services provided to SEZ unit foregoing exemption under Notification No.4/2004 dt. 31.3.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of Everest Convertors Vs. CCE reported in 1995 (80) ELT 91 (Tri.) 3. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 5. In this case initially the appellant has claimed exemption under Notification No.4/2004-ST dt. 31.3.2004 on the clearance made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
