TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- The vehicle belongs to the company and are used for an activity indirectly in relation to production and therefore by the amendment in the definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the services used for maintenance of vehicle is not excluded because the same is not used for personal use of a particular person - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - input services - Outdoor Catering Service and Health Insurance Charges - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is wrong in denying the CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on Outdoor Catering Service and Health Insurance Charges which had already been allowed in the OIO and the Department did not file any appeal against that nor the appellant has filed appeal before the Commissioner regarding Ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with interest and penalty. Further, the credit of Service Tax to the extent of ₹ 2,42,927/- was allowed and the credit of ₹ 6,883/- was denied with interest under Rule 14 and has imposed penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant 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 facts and the law. He further submitted that CENVAT credit was availed wrongly but the same was reversed as soon as the same was pointed out by the Department. He f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e during the disputed period and it is clear that at no point of time during the relevant period, the credit was less than what was availed by the appellant wrongly. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had sufficient balance during the relevant period and has not utilized the same. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.), the appellant is not liable to pay the interest and the penalty. In the following cases also, this finding has been followed: Radiall Indiv Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore, 2017 (6) TMI 201-CESTAT BANGALORE. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi, 2017 (11) TMI 1469- CESTAT NEW DELHI. Siderfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
