TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal and proper - demand with interest upheld. Penalty - Held that:- The appellant having entertained a bona fide belief that they are eligible for credit since the earlier SCN mentioned specifically about the eligibility of credit on Storage and Warehousing Services rendered to M/s. DCW Ltd., the equal penalty is unjustified - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/00033/2011 - Final Order No. 42354/2018 - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri. M. N. Bharathi Shri. S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri. A. Cletus, ADC (AR) ORDER PER BENCH : Brief facts are that the appellants ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W Ltd. and M/s. SPIC. In the said Show Cause Notice, it was mentioned by the Department that the appellant is eligible for the credit in respect of service tax paid on Storage and Warehousing Services rendered to M/s. DCW Ltd. and M/s. SPIC. Thus, when the Department had full knowledge of the activity rendered by the appellant, the Show Cause Notice issued later alleging suppression of facts cannot sustain. For the same reason, the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot sustain. 3.2 It is also argued by him that appellants were under bona fide belief that they are eligible for the credit. He relied upon the decision in the case of Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal, we find that the Department has stated in the said Show Cause Notice that the appellant is eligible for credit on service tax paid on Storage and Warehousing Services rendered to M/s. DCW Ltd. and M/s. SPIC for the period 02/2004 to 12/2004. The present Show Cause Notice is issued on the ground that the appellants have received reimbursement of the said expenses along with tax paid by them and therefore, are not eligible for credit. It is correct that the issue of reimbursement was not considered or raised in the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2006. For this reason we find that the invocation of extended period is legal and proper. 7. However, coming to the issue of penalty, we are of the view that the appellant having entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
