9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that the appellant has availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by input service distributor (ISD) who have been passing the credit of service tax paid on services which have no relation with the manufacture of soap. Accordingly, several SCNs as mentioned below were served demanding the recovery of the respective inadmissible cenvat credit alongwith the interest and the penalties (cenvat credit reversed) The main defence of the appellant before the Department had been that the maximum cenvat credit has been reversed. The details are as follows: Sr. No. SCN No./ Statement of demand no and date Period Cenvat credit amount involved Cenvat Credit Reversed 1. V(34)15-02/14-15/Adj-II/24766 dated 15 Jan 15 April 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. The Appeal was accordingly modified as partly allowed. Still being aggrieved, the Appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Ghanshyam Giri, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamana Alam, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the demand even to the extent of Rs. 44,33,290/- has wrongly been confirmed as an amount of Rs. 47,11,370/- already stands reversed by the appellant (Rs.44,23,022/- has been reversed by the ISD and remaining by the factory locations) that too even before the issuance of the SCN. No question of any demand in the circumstances at all arises because the reversal even by ISD is the reversal by the appellant itself. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe that initially six SCNs as detailed above were served upon the appellant demanding the recovery of the cenvat credit distributed by their ISD alleging the same to be inadmissible credit. The total recovery was Rs. 56,70,178/-. Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the entire demand except for the demand with respect to the first SCN dated 15.01.2015 that too for an amount of Rs. 44,33,290/- alongwith the penalty of Rs. 23,68,610/- alleging the same to be ineligible input for the credit being the construction activities. The dispute is not about holding the credit to be ineligible. The narrow compass of the present dispute is that when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and even of SCN dated 15.01.2015 alleging the construction services to be ineligible input. To my opinion Department was not justified for confirming the said demand. Amount stands already reversed though by the ISD. Tribunal Ahmedabad in the case of Castrol India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi reported in 2013 (30) S.T.R. 214 (Tri.-Ahmd.) while discussing Rule 2(m) of CCR defining input service distributor (ISD) and Rule 2(i) defining input services has held that denial of credit distributed by input service distributor is not justified when the credit distributed against the documents referred to Rule 9 in CCR does not exceed an amount of service tax paid thereof. The credit taken in respect of construction services rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
