TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar restrictions are in other proviso - there are certain restrictions on the utilization of particular type of duties which are elaborated in sub-rule (b) of Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - These restrictions do not cover cross utilization of credit of excise and service tax, as a general proposition. Sr. no. 8 and the Table details the CENVAT credit taken and utilized - In ER-1 return, in Table at Sr. no. 8, in column (9), details about service tax are specifically listed - On careful analysis of the said format, the intention appears to be to permit cross utilization of the credit of excise duty and service tax – Decided in favour of Assessee. Following CCE, Coimbatore vs. Lakshmi Technology and Engg. Industries Ltd. [2011 (2) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there is no restriction under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for cross utilization of the CENVAT credit and various Benches of this Tribunal has held so. In support of this argument the learned counsel quoted the following judgements: - Welspun Maxsteel Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad reported in [2013] 29 taxmann.com 154/41 STT 57 (Mum.); - Jyoti Structures Ltd. vs. CCE, Nasik reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 356 (Tri. - Mum.); - Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2010 (258) ELT 571 (Tri-MUM) - CCE, Coimbatore vs. Lakshmi Technology and Engg. Industries Ltd. reported in - CCE vs. AlidharaTextool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009(239)ELT 334(Tr-Ahd) 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining separate account for taxable and exempted service. The learned AR also advanced argument that the Returns in case of Service Tax is filed half-yearly, while in the case of Excise these are monthly and if unified account is maintained it will create confusion. He also argued that the issue before the Tribunal in the case of Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant has been unduly stretched and Tribunal's decision is therefore not a very good law. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the CENVAT Credit Rules. We find that Rule 2 defines input, input services, capital goods etc. Before availing CENVAT credit, a manufacturer or service provider has to be satisfy the defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also gone through the various case law quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant and we note that in the case of CCE, Pune vs. Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) in para 6 has observed as under: 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules permits credit to a manufacturer of final product or a service provider of taxable service. If a person manufactures only excisable goods, he is entitled to take credit of not only excise duties paid on capital goods and inputs but also additional duty of customs paid under the Customs Tariff Act in respect of imported inputs and capital goods and also service tax paid on the input servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... renting of immovable property. The credit taken by them as manufacturer / service provider has been used both for paying excise duty and for paying service tax. The rules permit taking of credit under a common pool and permit use of the credit from the common pool for different purposes and there is no restriction placed to the effect that credit accounts should be maintained for use for manufacture of excisable goods and for use for providing services. Therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted. The clarification sought to be relied upon by the Department that input credit service taken only if the output is a service liable to service tax has no relevance to the present case. Undisputedly, the respondents ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
