TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.04.2006 to 30.09.2006 have been disallowed as such credit was taken on 01.04.2006 , on which date vide Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 was issued. The said Notification provided that in respect of construction service of civil nature an abatement of 67% will be allowed from the gross amount, subject to the condition that the assessee will not be allowed to take CENVAT credit on inputs as well as input services. 2.1 The admitted facts as per the show cause notice are that in the course of audit conducted by the Revenue for the period 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2006, it was seen that the appellant was availing abatement under Notification No. 15/2004, wherein the appellant had been availing exemption granted of 67% of the value of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2006. Accordingly, the appellant was required to show-cause as to why the total amount of Rs. 11,06,479/- credit availed be not disallowed along with interest and further proposal to impose penalty under rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act. 3. The appellant contested the show-cause notice by filing reply. The ground taken by the appellant was that Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allow the clamant to avail credit pertaining to service tax paid on input service received on or after 10.09.2004. However Rule 4(7) providing that, the actual utilization of such credit shall be allowed on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the service tax to the service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant have taken credit accordingly on 01.04.2006, which cannot be denied. It is further urged that the purpose of Notification No. 1/06 is that CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services shall not be availed on services received on or after 01.03.2006. Thus, the interpretation made by the Revenue is incorrect. It is further urged that the appeal is fit to be allowed. The appellant further relies on the CBEC Circular No. 137/72/2008-CX dated 21.11.2008, which provides, with respect to the amendment made in the Rules 6 sub Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which contained bar of utilization of credit of more than 20% of the credit availed. The said disability was removed by the said notification and it was further clarified in the CBEC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....products while paying duty on specified final products. In the list of items, vide Notification No. 177/86, coolants was not provided. Accordingly, the unutilised credit lying in the books of the assessee was disallowed to be taken as the brought forward in view of the subsequent notification. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that although on 01.03.1986 inputs like oil & coolants and final products manufactured of such inputs were not included in the Notification issued under Rule 50(7A) of Central Excise Rule, there was no provision incorporated to declare that such credit has lapsed. Relying on the earlier Ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of India 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC), it was held ....