TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Once the appellant has paid the service tax voluntarily and informed the Department accordingly, then denial of credit on the ground of suppression of fact by invoking longer period of limitation cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20377 of 2019, 20223 of 2019 - Final Order Nos. 20076 - 20077/2020 - Dated:- 31-1-2020 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate And Mr. M.S. Bidarkoti, Consultant For the Appellant Mr. K.B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commr. (AR) For the Respondent ORDER PER: S.S GARG The appellant has filed these two appeals against the impugned order dated 28/01/2018 and 26/11/2018 whereby in Appeal No. E/20377/2019, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original whereas in Appeal No. E/20223/2019, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant. Since in both the cases, the facts are interlinked, therefore both the cases are taken together for di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act was issued to the appellant. Show-cause notice also proposed to demand interest and imposed penalties apart from proposing to order for an appropriation of an amount of ₹ 2,99,134/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four only) and reversed by the appellant towards cenvat credit proposal and an amount of ₹ 8,704/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Four only) paid by them towards interest liability. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 11/04/2016 dropped the part of the proposal contained in the show-cause notice and consequently disallowed the cenvat credit of ₹ 2,99,134/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four only) availed by the appellant in respect of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. The Assistant Commissioner also demanded interest and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC (1)(c) of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C) b. Commr. Vs. Narayan Polyplast 2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (SC) c. Prakash Foods Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2018 (360) E.L.T. 1017 (Tri.-Mumbai) d. Anglo French Textiles Vs. CCE, Puducherry 2018 (360) E.L.T. 1016 (Tri.-Chennai) e. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai 2016 (44) S.T.R. 465 (Tri.-Mumbai) f. British Airways V. Commr. 2014 (36) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Del.) g. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II 2016 (43) S.T.R. 479 (Tri.-Chan) 4.2. He also submitted that the appellant has rightly availed cenvat credit of service tax paid by them as there cannot be any suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of service tax since non-payment of service tax resulted in revenue neutral situation and hence the exception created under Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the denial of credit by invoking longer period of limitation is not sustainable as the facts were within the knowledge of the Department at the time of availment of credit and the Department failed to initiate any action within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) has rejected the main appeal vide its Order dated 28/01/2018. He also submitted that the benefit of reduced rate of penalty can only be availed if the appellant has complied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and deposited the reduced penalty under Section 11AC(1)(c) if the same was paid within 30 days but the appellant has not paid the reduced penalty within the stipulated time. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant has been availing the service of Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency and Security Agency from Shri C.N. Sarda and M/s. Balaji Trading Company during the period October 2012 to March 2014. The Department vide its letter dated 21.03.2014 sought various documents and during that time, the appellant realized their mistake of wrong availment of cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 2,99,134/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four only) and the same was reversed along with interest of ₹ 8,704/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Four only) and furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
