9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: B.S.V. Murthy; The impugned Order-In-Original disposed of 2 show-cause notices issued to the appellant on 20/06/2008 and 07/11/2008. In the first show-cause notice, service tax demand of Rs.1,10,15,280/- was made on the ground that appellant could not have adjusted the excess service tax paid earlier in the subsequent months in the absence of appellant having centralized registration. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the appellant had paid excess service tax during the earlier period and subsequently they had adjusted the same. He submits that the appellant obtained centralized registration in May 2007 which was the ground for demand. Further, he also submits that this is only a procedural mistake. As regards the demand relating to excess availment of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax, he relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the restriction under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not apply to utilization of CENVAT credit availed on capital goods. In this case, on the basis of the submissions made before the Commissioner as well as before us, we find that during the relevant periods, if we take only credit taken on inputs/input services, the availment would not exceed 20% as required under Rule 6(3) of the CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
