TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Ultratech Cement Ltd [2014 (5) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore, the Appellants are not eligible to CENVAT Credit of various services used in the construction and maintenance of employees’ quarters. Imposition of penalty u/r 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that: - the Appellant under the bonafide belief had availed CENVAT Credit on the services and the demand is issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices 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 such services is not eligible being not an input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, demand notice was issued for recovery of said credit of ₹ 5,35,668/- for the period March 2010 to December 2010, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 as much as the demand was issued for the normal period and even today as per the judgments of other High Courts CENVAT Credit on services used in the residential colony is admissible. Therefore, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant. 5. Per contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case as the Appellant under the bonafide belief had availed CENVAT Credit on the services and the demand is issued for the normal period of limitation. In absence of proposal for penalty under other penal provisions, in my opinion, the penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
