TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of cenvat credit, the penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Rules would be attracted - Decided against the assessee - E/1684-85 OF 2008-SM - 146 AND 147 OF 2011-SM(BR.) - Dated:- 9-2-2011 - RAKESH KUMAR, J. Krishna Pratap Singh for the Appellant. Sanjay Grover for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The Respondent are manufacturers of cement chargeable to Central Excise duty. They also availed the cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and the capital goods and of the service tax paid on 'input services' as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent availed certain taxable services - construction of residential complexes, repair and maintenance, man-power recruitment service, cleaning services, all in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide orders-in-appeal No. 36/RPR-I/08, dated 4-4-2008 and No. 37/RPR-I/2008, dated 4-4-2008 set aside the Asstt. Commissioner's Orders relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement v. CCE C [Order No. A/27/C-IV/SMB/2008, dated 13-12-2007] (Mum. - CESTAT). It is against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the revenue has filed these appeals. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri K.P. Singh, ld. Departmental Representative reiterating the grounds of appeal in revenue's appeal pleaded that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended period under proviso to section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as there is no suppression of relevant facts or wilful mis-statement on the part of the respondent, that at the time of taking credit, the respondent had taken the same view in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra), according to which cenvat credit in respect of the services availed in the residential colony was admissible, that it is only in 2008 that the Tribunal's judgment in the case of CCE v. Manikgarh Cement Works [2010] 24 STT 1 (Mum. - CESTAT) was reversed, that when the respondent had taken the cenvat credit in question under bona fide belief that the same was admissible, no mala fide in this regard can be attached and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. E/l684/2008, the respondent's plea is that there is no justification for invoking extended period as the respondent had availed the cenvat credit in respect of the services in question under bona fide belief in view of the Tribunal's judgment in case of Manikgarh Cement (supra) that the same is admissible to them and that in view of this, the demand, for the period from 16-6-2005 to August 2006 is time-barred. On going through the order-in-original. I find that though the Asstt. Commissioner had given a finding that extended period would be invokable and also the penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with section 11AC would be attracted, there is no discussion as to how the conditions for invoking extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
