TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit attributed to the exempted services along with interest, the demand is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. ST/90062/2014 - Order No. A/86314/16/SMB - Dated:- 17-2-2016 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Nimesh Mehta, Adv For the Respondent : Shri N. Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (A.R.) ORDER This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AV(195)187/2014 dated 08/09/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), wherein Ld. Commissioner upholding the Order-in-Original No. 04/ST/ADC/2014 dt. 23.4.2014 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant is a Co-operative Bank providing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s along with interest. Therefore, the position is that as if the appellant have not availed the Cenvat Credit, consequently demand raised under Rule 6(3)(i) is not sustainable. He submits that lower authority has solely decided the demand on the basis of Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central excise Thane I vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 (244) ELT 321(Bom.). He submits that the judgment of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. (supra) is related to the period prior to 1.4.2008, during that period the option for the proportionate reversal of Cenvat Credit was not available, which comes into effect form 1.4.2008. Therefore, the whole basis of the confirmation of demand is not correct. In support of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) ltd. (supra), I find that the period involved in that case is prior to 1.4.2008. From 1.4.2008 two options have been provided in Rule 6(3)-(1) Proportionate reversal of Cenvat Credit attributed to the exempted service. (2) 8%-6% of the value of the exempted services. Therefore, the legal provision prevailing during the period involved in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. (supra) and during the period involved in the present case are different. Therefore, the judgment of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable. On going through the judgment relied upon by the appellant, I find that the ratio of the judgment are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
