TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services are not admissible input services in term of definition of input services. We considered that the institution is one single entity and carrying out various activities related to education as well as scientific analysis simultaneously where some of the services are taxable and some are exempted or not liable to service tax. The appellant have declared the entire Cenvat credit availed by them to the department. In view of this fact, the appellant made out fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 76 invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - However, penalty on Section 77 is upheld - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/422/11, ST/CO/101/11 - Final Order Nos. A/3620-3621/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 14-10-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that these input services were not used by the appellant for providing output service i.e. Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services. It was also contended that in case of some of services, it was used for exempted services on which Cenvat credit was not admissible in terms of Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004. Appellant is not maintaining separate account for taxable and exempted services. Various show cause notices were issued which were adjudicated by common adjudication order, which is the impugned order in present appeal. 3. Shri R.G. Sheth, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Puloma Dalal, C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the out set submit that as per instruction of the appellant, he concedes demand of Cenvat Credit and payment th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant in taking inadmissible Cenvat credit. The appellant is Government reputed technical institution. There is no individual beneficiary in taking wrong Cenvat credit, therefore malafide is not proved. Consequently penalty is not imposable on the appellant. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) BSNL Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2008 (9) S.T.R. (Tri. Bang.)] (b) Surat Municipal Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Surat [2006 (4) S.T.R. 44 (Tri. Del.)] (c) Gadkari Rangayatan Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2014 (36) S.T.R. 155 (Tri. Mumbai)] He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which are applicable to the present case also. We also seen that issue involved is wrong availment of Cenvat credit due to reasons that either some of the input services were not used in the taxable output services or input services are not admissible input services in term of definition of input services. We considered that the institution is one single entity and carrying out various activities related to education as well as scientific analysis simultaneously where some of the services are taxable and some are exempted or not liable to service tax. The appellant have declared the entire Cenvat credit availed by them to the department. In view of this fact, the appellant made out fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 76 invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
