TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed second option and reversed the proportionate credit attributable to the exempted service, along with interest for delayed reversal of such credit - there is no reason to insist at the respondent should necessarily follow the first option of paying 6% of the value of exempted service - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.806/2012-(DB) - ST/A/53085/2017-CU[DB] - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal relates to the respondent's liability in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the respondent have provided taxable as well as exempted/non-taxable output services. As they have not maintained separate accounts for availing credit on various input services and were providing annuity services, which is not subjected to service tax during the material time, proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t calculating on the demand proposed in the show cause notice. The show cause notice proposed recovery of 6% of the value of exempted service. The respondent did not opt to follow the second option of reversing the proportionate credit. As such, the original order should not have given such option to the respondent. As such, it is contended that the respondent is liable to pay ₹ 10,80,543/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedure in terms of Rule 6(3A). The impugned order also upheld their eligibility to follow one of the options, with reference to credit attributable to the exempted services. The respondent, on receipt of the impugned order, followed the procedure of reversal of proportionate credit and calculated the amount to be reversed. They have reversed the said amount along with interest (by cash) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue is to the effect that the respondent failed to exercise the option for reversal at the time of availing credit. We note that the annuity products are considered as exempted service as held by the impugned order. It is also held that the appellant has to follow the consequences of such finding. We note that upon the direction of the impugned order, the respondent did exercise the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
