9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Cenvat Credit facility in respect of the inputs, capital goods and input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The appellants were issued show-cause notice dated 06.10.2005 for recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 5,55,112/- under Section 11A(1) of the Act allegedly for violation of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the appellant has claimed service tax credit on the basis of invoice raised in respect of Calico land which was not incorporated in the manufacturing premises of the appellant, and secondly, in respect of certain invoice credit was sought to be denied on the ground that service tax registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. They have also attached the invoice and the purchase order in the present appeal. Further submission of the counsel is that M/s. Ex-serviceman Airlinks Services Ltd. had a valid service tax registration no. but the Jt. Commissioner ignored this aspect. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Now the question before me in this appeal is whether the denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax in case of Calico on the ground that Calico is not incorporated in the excise registration certificate of appellant is justified or not and secondly, denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax on the ground that the service tax registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced certificate of service tax registration of the service provider dated 03.09.2002 whereas services have been provided in July/August 2007 much after the registration. Both the authorities below failed to consider this fact and wrongly denied the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, the alleged demand is further reduced by Rs. 1,08,930/- on this count. Ld. Counsel in support of his argument cited the following decisions:- i) C. Metric Solution P. Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 460 ii) Well Known Polyesters Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 411 iii) Sanghi Industries Ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 375. 9. It is pertinent to note that in respect of few invoices issued by the service providers, the appellant had admitted the wrong availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 72,675/- and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
