TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the CENVAT Credit for the previous period as there is no such specific bar in the subsequent Notification no. 1/2006. This view is further fortified by the view taken by CBEC Circular with respect to brought forward CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 sub Rule 3 when the disability of utilisation of 20% was removed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/88218/14-MUM - Final Order No. A/1519/2015-WZB (SMB) - Dated:- 9-4-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B K Iyer, Supdt (AR) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The appellant company is engaged in the business of civil construction and is registered with the Service Tax Department under the categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - as reflected in ST-3 return for the period 01.04.2006 to 03.09.2006. The details of the details of bills etc. are in Annexure A, to show-cause notice. Show-cause notice dated 28.12.2010 was issued on the appellant alleging that the appellant could have availed credit of CENVAT for service tax paid on inputs services availed during the period prior to 01.04.2006 but they chose not to do. The ST-3 returns submitted show that no credit was availed during the prior period when it was received. Instead the appellant have availed the credit on 01.04.2006 that is one month after the Notification dated 1.3.06. According to Revenue, once the notification is rescinded, there can be no legality in availing the benefits allowed by the same. The Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to confirm the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground, among others, that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the appellant will not be entitled to take credit for the services received, admittedly, prior to 1.3.2006 but the credit of which has been booked on 01.04.2006. This is against the provisions of the Finance Act read with CENVAT Credit Rules, read with the Notification. Admittedly, the appellant was availing the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004 under which it was entitled to CENVAT Credit on input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Bharat Raichandani, also relies on the ruling of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2003 (159) ELT 129 (Bombay), wherein the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that Notification no. 201/79-ST provided exemption to all goods on which inputs, components, parts, raw materials under the erstwhile tariff item 68 had been used, from so much of the duty paid on such inputs, raw materials, and/or components, parts, subject to the condition provided therein. The assessee was availing benefit of the said Notification in respect of several items including oil coolants. With effect from 01.03.1986, the Central Government introduced MODVAT scheme replacing the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that effect as they had done in the case of a new rate on tractors and motor vehicles. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unutilised credit in spite of subsequent Notification not allowing CENVAT credit for the same. 6. The learned A.R. for the Revenue relied on the impugned order. The learned A.R. further submits that Notification is issued under the specific Section of the Act and hence will override provision of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 (sic). 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the appellant have rightly taken credit for the input services received and availed admittedly prior to 01.03.2006 although credit for the same have been taken on 01.04.2006, subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
