2014 (11) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut service credit of Rs. 12,70,670/- relating to the period from September 2008 to April 2010 with interest under Section 11AB and equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act,1944 read with Rule 15 0f CENVAT Credit Rules,2004.          1.2. It is pertinent to mention here that the earlier Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Bangalore in Order-in-Appeal No 405/2011 CE dated 26/12/2011 in Appeal No.JMJ/415/2010 B.I had allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the earlier order-in-original No.66/2010 dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate relating to the period from April 2005 to August 2008 dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies functioning in the campus of M/s Grind Well Norton Ltd. The other unit is M/s Lincoln Helios (India) Limited, Bangalore. (a) Factory Administration Facility (b) Canteen Facility (c) Housekeeping the factory area (d) Security Services (e) Transport facility (f) Providing water to the factory (g) Telephone (h) Panchayat Tax + Other taxes (i) Other admin / campus services 1.4. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s Grind Well Norton Ltd is a service provider under "Business Auxiliary Service' apart from other services. The definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' was expanded to include three more clauses. Services in relation to the procurement chain have been covered vide insertion of Clause (iv) viz. procurement of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period is not applicable in the instant case as explained in para 18 of the Grounds of Appeal. As regards, equal amount penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules,2014, the various case laws cited in para 20 of the Grounds of Appeal may kindly be considered. 2. After hearing learned A.R. on behalf of Revenue and considering the submissions made by learned consultant, we find that in this case, the appellant availed credit based on documents issued by M/s Grind Well Norton Ltd. only and the necessary details required are available therein. It is not the case of the department that the appellant has not paid service tax at all. It is also not the case of the department that the appellant has not received service or utilized the same. Furt....