TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit was ever availed - the denial of abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST is not justifiable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50540 of 2014 - Final Order No. 52854/2017 - Dated:- 13-4-2017 - Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Narendra Singhvi, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 30/09/2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in running hotel and provide various taxable services. They are providing short term accommodation to their guests and also rent ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf. It is further submitted that the time of reversal of such credit is immaterial, as long as the same is done with applicable interest. The learned Counsel relied on the following cases in support of his defence :- (a) CCE, Jaipur - I vs. Sanjay Engineering Industries reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R. 354 (Raj.) ; (b) Beekay Engineering Corporation vs. Commissioner reported in 2015 - TIOL - 2458 - CEST- DEL. ; (c) Sonalac Paints Coatings Limited vs. Commissioner reported in 2015 - TIOL - 77 - SC - CX. (d) CCE CUS. vs. Precot Meridian Limited reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.) ; (e) Hello Mineral Water (P) Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.) ; (f) Uniworth Limited vs. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. We note that similar set of facts were considered by the Tribunal and High Courts and Supreme Court. Dealing with the provisions of the very same notification, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sanjay Engineering Industries (supra) held as below :- 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the finding that admittedly during the course of adjudication the assessee submitted that they have reversed the total credit availed of by them during March, 2008 to the extent of ₹ 2,06,541/- along with interest of ₹ 17,093/- and once they reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). Accordingly, in our view the said judgment squarely covers the issue raised in the instant appeal. 10. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashima Dyecot Ltd. (supra), also took into consideration the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra), and observed as under :- 6. The findings rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra), are clearly applicable to the present matters. In that case also, the case of the Department was that reversal of credit entries is not permitted by the rules. The assessee is not entitled to remove the copper wires without payment of duty since credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ratio laid down in this decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and maintenance of separate books of account at the initial stage cannot be considered to be a condition precedent for the purpose of claiming the benefit of exemption to the respondent-assessee. Thus, the judgment of Gujarat High Court is also squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case. 11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are on different proposition and distinguishable on facts . 5. Regarding the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in Hind Lamps Ltd. (supra), we note that the Tribunal was examining the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the judgment of Allahabad High Court had taken into account the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Indeed in the above case, the Hon ble Supreme Court concluded that we see no reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product . This observation in no way necessarily implies that the Supreme Court would have necessarily found it unacceptable if a debit entry in the credit account was made after removal of the exempted goods, particularly when such debit entry reversed the Cenvat credit along with interest before the primary adjudication. Seen in this light the distinguishing effort by CESTAT in the case of Hind Lamps (supra) fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
