TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could be doubt regarding the scope of the legislation, and the Govt. considered it appropriate to add explanations to clarify disputes. - Decided against the assessee. - ST/275/2006 - FINAL ORDER No. 40053/2014 - Dated:- 24-1-2014 - Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellant : Shri Quadir Hoseyn, Adv, For the Respondent : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) JUDGEMENT The applicant is engaged in the business of providing Banking and Financial Services and they have been paying Service tax since 2001 when such service became taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. When Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was notified with effect from 10.09.2004, they claimed Cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on various equipment like compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to 10.09.04. He submits that this new rule is clarificatory in nature and various Courts have decided that such amendments would have retrospective effect. He relies on the following two decisions of the Apex Court: 1. Allied Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Income Tax (1997) 091 TAXMAN 205 (SC) 2. Commr. Of Wealth-tax Vs. N.M.R. Krishnamoorthy Sons Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 123 TAXMAN 398 (MAD.) Therefore, he submits that his appeal may be allowed. 3. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. AR for Revenue submits that prior to 10.09.2004, the credit schemes that were operated for central excise levy and service tax levy were distinct and had distinct features. Under central excise, credit of duty paid on capital goods and inputs were allowed but no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear demarcation on time frame based on which the new scheme was to be operated. I do not see any reason for any doubt about the scope of the Rule and the Tribunal should not be deciding new policy by giving effect to such benefits retrospectively contrary to legal provisions and policies of the government. The decisions cited by the appellant were in the context of situations where there could be doubt regarding the scope of the legislation, and the Govt. considered it appropriate to add explanations to clarify disputes. The rule in question in the present appeal is different from explanations considered in the said cases. So, I see no merit in the appeal and the appeal is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
