9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled against OIA No.CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-257/u/s 35A(3), dt.05.02.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of various services used in construction of 20 residential flats outside the factory premises to be used by the employees of the Appellant. Alleging that the CENVAT Credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE Hyderabad Vs ITC Ltd 0 2013 (32) STR 288 (A.P.) and in their own case by this Tribunal Order No.A/11036-11039/2015, dt.14.07.2015. The learned Advocate further argued that imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is unwarranted and unjustified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) and in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd (supra). Therefore, the Appellants are not eligible to CENVAT Credit of various services used in the construction and maintenance of employees' quarters. However, I find force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant that penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
