9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: S K Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant in this case, is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of Cotton Fabrics and other Textile articles, falling under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period October' 2008 to September' 2009, the appellant had received the services of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. Accordingly, the Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, which culminated into the adjudication order dated 28.11.2014 (for short, "the impugned order"), wherein Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,11,63,343/- was disallowed and the appellant was directed to pay interest at appropriate rate. Besides, the impugned order also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 41, to state that a service receiver is not permitted to utilise Cenvat credit for payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism and consequently, is also not permitted to avail Cenvat credit of such amount. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5.1 We find that this Tribunal, in the case of the appellant itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal, in appellant's another appeal for different period, vide order dated 20.09.2016 (supra), has extended the facility of utilization of Cenvat credit for discharge of service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism. It has also been held that the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit of service tax amount on the commission paid to the foreign commission agent. 5.2 Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder reverse charge mechanism. 5.3 The ratio of the decision in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the ld. DR for Revenue cannot be applied in this case inasmuch as in such decided case, ITC Ltd. was not providing any output service nor was manufacturing any dutiable final product; whereas, in the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is manufacturing excisable goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
