9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as "the said act" for sake of brevity) r/w Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as CCR, 2004 for sake of brevity) 2. Recovery of interest at appropriate rate on the aforesaid confirmed demand from its due date till actual date of payment, in terms of Section 75 of the said act r/w Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. 3. Penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the said Act. M/s. Indian Resort Hotels Limited. 1. Demand of Rs. 12,38,023/- (Service Tax) + Rs. 26,023/- (Ed. Cess) - Total Rs. 12,64,431/- as per Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the said act" for sake of brevity) r/w Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as CCR, 2004 for sake of brevity) 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants were found to be providing services of hotel accommodation, restaurant and bar services, which were not taxable services. On scrutiny of the ST3 Returns filed for the period Oct 05 to March, 06 (filed on 25-4-07) and after inter-action with the officers of the Appellants it was noticed that they had maintained one common account for the input services, which had been used for providing both taxable as wells as non-taxable services and utilized the Cenvat credit to the extent of above 20% of the total credit available at the end of the month and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) of the said Rules. 3. Accordingly, show cause aim demand notice to all the above mentioned 3 Appellants was issued requiring the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Ashalata S. Guram (1986) SC 447 (4) PEK Kalliani Amma (Smt.) v. K Devi, (1996) 4 SCC 76 (5) Polyflims v. CCE, 2006 (198) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (6) Ballarpur Inds. v. CCE, Nagpur, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 413 (T) (7) CCE v. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1278 (T) (8) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373 (9) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carrier, (2003) 3 SCC 57 (10) Sagar Twisters v. CCE, Mumbai, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 497 (T) (11) R.A. Mani v. A. Palanimuthu, AIR 1967 Madras 16 (12) Mukesh Engineering Industries v. CCE, 1995 (79) E.L.T. 718 (T) (13) TELCO v. CCE, 2001 (138) E.L.T. 1132 (T). 7. Personal heating in all these 3 cases was held on 25-6-2007. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate appeared on behalf of all the 3 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on taxable service as specified in sub-clause (g), (q) (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzq) and (zzr) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act shall be allowed unless such service is used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services." 12. This rule does not talk about taking or utilization, and I am unable to see from where the inference about the taking and utilization has been taken. The word is allowed and allowed covers both taking and utilization. I am unable to agree with the adjudicating authorities' contention that the credit was only to be taken and not utilized. 13. Though it is not really required, I would like to mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
