TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in favor of appellant. - E/20348/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20223/2019 - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Special Lubricating Creases falling under Chapter Subheading 27 and 34 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984 and are availing the CENVAT credit on input, capital goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11AA of the Act and penalty was also proposed. The lower authority after following the due process confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the scheme of CENVAT credit as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that there is only trading activity in terms of Finance Act, 1994 and not trading service and on export of goods, assessee is entitled to refund of service tax paid on services availed for export and it is a revenue neutral situation. It was also held that the goods were exported under ARE-1 document and was well within the knowledge of the Department and therefore, extended period of limitation was not invokable. Further, he relied upon the decision in the case of Jotindra Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi: 2014 (36) STR 672 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the Tribunal held that when two options are available, the assessee has choice to avail any one of such option. Further, Notification which permits refunds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the purview of manufacture or provision of taxable service. He further submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated as Export of Service as conditions laid down in Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are not satisfied. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant has in fact received services of overseas trading partner and the same has been used for export of goods. It is also a fact that appellant has actually paid the service tax as applicable under Reverse Charge Mechanism under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the appellant has not sought refund or exemption from pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
