TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e extended period could not have been invoked in the case – Relying upon M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT]. There was an accumulated pending balance which was utilized for the payment of excise duty - the appellants have not suppressed any fact in view of the peculiar circumstances in this case where the appellant was providing only output services prior to April 2008 and from April 2008 onwards started manufacturing the excisable goods - it is difficult to take prima facie view that there was mis-declaration or suppression of facts on the part of the appellants – the appellants have made out a prima facie case on limitation alone - there shall be waiver of pre-depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned order confirms the demand for accumulated CENVAT credit utilized with interest and has imposed penalty equivalent to the amount demanded. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submits that in this case, the unit was audited in the year 2009 and objection was raised taking a view that in the absence of an enabling provision as in the case of inputs to avail credit subsequently, credit on input services accumulated could not have been availed and therefore the CENVAT credit utilized for payment of duty was not appropriate. Appellants replied to the audit objection. It was only on 5.9.2011, a show-cause notice was served on the appellants for the period April 2005 to August 2009 proposing to treat the CENVAT credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts or mis-declaration on the part of the appellants. Besides the appellants were also entitled to the bona fide belief in view of the fact that there was no bar for utilizing CENVAT credit across various products / services by an assessee. 3. Learned AR would submit that in this case, there is absolutely no nexus between the CENVAT credit of service tax availed and the finished goods. He relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (SC) and submits that in absence of nexus between input service and finished goods, credit cannot be availed. He submits that same decision is applicable for a service tax credit available in respect of services received also. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
