TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 6 ibid were invocable - I do not find from the said Show Cause Notice that Cenvat credit was availed on such quantity of input service which was used for providing exempted output service and the situation was covered by Sub-rule (1) of said Rule 6. Therefore, there was no case for invocation of Sub-rule (3) of said Rule 6. The said SCN dated 13/03/2015 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/70328/2017-ST[SM] With ST/MISC/70175/2017 - A/70716/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13. In spite of that they were issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 13/03/2015, wherein at Para 4 of the said Show Cause Notice, the contention of the appellants as to how they have taken less Cenvat credit on the above stated two common services as compared to the total Service Tax paid by the input service provider on the said input services. However, the said Show Cause Notice called upon the appellant to show cause as to why amount of ₹ 4,46,749/- should not be demanded from the appellant under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice on contest was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 359/Assistant Commissioner/Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said transaction attracted provisions of Sub-rule (2) of said Rule 6 that Cenvat Credit was availed in respect of such input services to such extent that they were used for providing both taxable exempted services and no separate account was maintained and hence provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 ibid were invocable. I do not find from the said Show Cause Notice that Cenvat credit was availed on such quantity of input service which was used for providing exempted output service and the situation was covered by Sub-rule (1) of said Rule 6. Therefore, there was no case for invocation of Sub-rule (3) of said Rule 6. Therefore, I hold that the said Show Cause Notice dated 13/03/2015 is not sustainable. Therefore, I set aside the both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
