TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 and, therefore, there was no question of payment of service tax on that activity by the manufacturing units of the company - manufacturing units could not have been expected to maintain separate accounts. The show-cause notices appear to disclose self-contradictory stand of the revenue with reference to the fact of this case - appellant also seems to have a good case on limitation against the impugned demands - in favor of assessee - E/St/1931-1938/2011, E/3088-3095/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2012 - P.G. Chacko, J. R. Dakshinamurthy, Adv. for the Appellant Sabrina Cano, A.R for the Respondent P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member 1. These stay applications filed by the appellant seek waiver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed in 2008-2009. They invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act. These show-cause notices also proposed penalties on the company (input service distributor) and its manufacturing units (recipients of the input services distributed by the company). The demands and other proposals were contested by the noticees. The original authority passed eight separate orders against the eight manufacturing units of the company and those orders were taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority affirmed all the orders-in-original. Hence the present appeals and the connected stay applications. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, during the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distributor and it distributed input services under cover of valid invoices to the various manufacturing units, eight in number, which were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations (dutiable final products). It is not the case of the department that any duty or tax was payable on the trading activity. If that be the case, there is no question of any part of the input service tax credit being used for any purpose associated with the trading activity. The entire credit was utilized for payment of duty of excise on the dutiable final products. In this factual scenario, the case law cited before me is not relevant, nor is the basis of the demand prima facie sustainable in law. The input service distributor cannot be found fault ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
