9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput services under CCR, 2004. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to deny the credit of service tax availed on construction of warehouse within the factory premises during the period December, 2009 to January, 2011 and to deny them input credit of service tax paid on repair and maintenance of Automatic Dispensing Machines (ADM) installed at the dealer's premises during the period September, 2007 to November, 2011. One of the ways of selling paints is through Automatic Dispensing Machines at the dealer premises. These machines combine the base paint with appropriate quantities of various pigments to produce the paint of the exact shade required by the customer at the dealer's premises. It is the case of Revenue that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the factory and the definition of input service includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory. As regards the service tax paid on maintenance of ADMs, he argues that they have paid the service tax on the repairs and maintenance of ADMs and the credit may be allowed as they were used for dispensation of paint. On limitation, it is his contention that the entire credit was taken and duly shown in the monthly ER-1 returns along with other credits; there was no legal requirement to separately show the credit taken on these two elements and therefore they have not suppressed any facts. The show cause notice dated 01.10.2012 was issued for the period covered is December, 2009 to January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit on these items in violation of the CCR, 2004. It is his argument that by violating the rules the appellant had availed Central Excise duty and therefore the extended period of demand is invokable and penalty is also imposable upon the assessee/appellant. 7. I have examined the arguments on both sides and the records of the case. During the relevant period credit was available to a manufacturer on input services which were used whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of the final products up to the place of removal and included services used in relation to modernization, renovation, repairs of a factory. The appellant being a manufacturer paying excise duty, CENVAT credit has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenance of ADMs at their dealers premises which are beyond the place of removal. On the question of limitation, I find that the appellant cannot be alleged to have suppressed the facts, because ER- 1 did not require the appellant to show dealers of credit availed on each input or input services. However, it is the responsibility of appellant to ensure that they take credit of goods as per the law. The Central Excise Act and Rules are framed giving total authority of taking credit and clearing goods to the assessee with concomitant responsibility. While the assessee can take credit on inputs or input services, it is his equal responsibility to take credit of only such amount as it is admissible to him under the rules. When Rule 2(l) of CCR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
