9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Since the issue in both the appeals is interconnected and identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Appeal No. E/22949/2014 is taken. The appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration, engaged in the manufacture of Forgings of Iron & Steel, Transmission Elements Steel Die Blocks falling under Chapter sub-heading 73269090, 84834000, 82073000 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on various input s`ervices under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR in short). During the course of audit by the Department Audit Team, it was found that the appellants had availed ineligible cenvat credit on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also the said service was not used by the manufacturer in the production of goods in the factory premises. It further appeared that the above act of commission on the part of the appellant was conscious and deliberate, inasmuch as they had suppressed these facts from the knowledge of the Department. The fact of wrong availment of cenvat credit came to light only during the course of audit. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants. After following the due process of law, the original authority confirmed the entire demand along with appropriate interest and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from 01.04.2011 instead of applying the old input service definition for the dispute relating to March 2008 and concluded that inclusive definition does not include construction activities. He further submitted that by misconstruing the definition he has ignored the relevant phrases i.e. setting up of a factory, activities relating to business and such as in the old input service definition and has also travelled beyond the show-cause notice. He further submitted that setting up of a factory is specifically covered under the inclusive part of the input service definition and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the amended definition whereas the period involved in the present case is March 2008. He also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that merely because the credit was reversed at one factory and taken at another factory, it does not mean that the appellant has availed irregular credit. At the worst, it would be a case of taking credit on the basis of a defective document. By amending the invoices under his seal and signature, the contractor has cured the defect in the document. He also submitted that for the same demand another show-cause notice was issued when the cenvat credit was taken at Hosakote factory after reversing the same at Maruthalli factory. He further submitted that subsequent show-cause notice for recovery of cenvat credit at Hosakote factory is barred by principle of constructive res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
