TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit which was rightly availed by them. Further, the appellants have been filing the ER1 returns regularly in which they were showing the CENVAT credit availed by them and invoking the extended period of limitation in the facts and circumstances of this case is not legal and unsustainable - The credit was rightly availed during the period 2005-07 for the purpose of availing the management consultancy service received by the appellant during the said period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21387/2015 - Final Order No. 22349/2017 - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were originally availed and the CENVAT credit availed and utilised in relation to the above services is irregular and in contravention of provisions of Rule 2(l) of CCR. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the management consultancy services were rendered for modernisation of existing plant and is eligible for CENVAT credit as per the definition of input service in CCR, 2004. He further submitted that the credit was taken and utilised in 2005-07 and it is not the case of the Department that the credit was not taken correctly. He further submitted that the expenditure incurred for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khurana Woolen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2013(289) ELT 153 (P H)] iv. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Tata Advance Materials Ltd. [2011(271) ELT 62 (Kar.)] 4.3. He further submitted that in the present case extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there was no suppression on the part of the appellant as the appellant has filed ER1 returns monthly and in the impugned order, the Department has not able to set up a case against the appellant with intention to evade tax. He further submitted that the demand is based on an audit objection and the audit was conducted in 2010-11 and in spite of the Department having knowledge, the show-cause notice was only issued on 01/08/2014 after nearly 9 years of the availment of the same. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was incumbent upon them to reverse the service tax credit in respect of the said ARP project which was not done by them. 6. In reply to the objections raised by the Department, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said case was for a completely different purpose and related to all the parts imported under EPCG licence. He further submitted that the estimated cost of the project was ₹ 129.4 crore and the appellant spent ₹ 225.8 crores for setting up the plant. Since the cost exceeded the budget of the appellant, the ARP was abandoned and at the time of availment of credit, there was no irregularity and the said credit was for the intended purpose and therefore there was no requirement to reverse the credit. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
