TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is from April 2007 to September 2011 during which six periodical show cause notices were issued - Held that:- Prima facie Service tax credit of actual Service tax paid by the service provider is only admissible under CCR. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- even if extended period is held to be inapplicable then also the entire demand of Service tax will not be completely time barred. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d equivalent penalty has also been imposed against the appellant. 2. Shri Depro Sen (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the demand period is from April 2007 to September, 2011 during which six periodical show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt.Ltd. (M/s.ABMCPL) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation and imposition of penalties cannot be enforced against the appellant when periodical show cause notices were being issued. 3. Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the facts involved in the present proceedings are different than the facts in the appeal where Order No.SO/76689/2014 dated 21.11.2014 was passed with respect to appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this case. That even if M/s.ABMPCL is not required to be register under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) then also the spirit of this Rule cannot allow Cenvat credit more than the Service tax paid by M/s.ABMCPL for the services provided to appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether Cenvat Credit is admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred. Detailed arguments made by either sides during hearing can be only gone into at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the confirmed demands and penalties and is required to be put to some conditions. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant will deposit an amount of ₹ 10.50 Lakhs within eight w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
