9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Shri R. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sanitary Wares falling under Chapter 6910 and 6911 of the First Schedule to CETA, 1985. They were availing the facility of cenvat credit of service tax paid on various input services. On verification of accounts, it was noticed that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Services' was brought forth only after 01.04.2011. To support his argument, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sharada Motors Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-2592-CESTAT MAD; Chennai Containers Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 359 (Tri.-Chennai). 3. Ld. Counsel was fair enough to submit that after 01.04.2011, the appellant is not eligible for credit on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TIDC India Ltd. Vs CGST & Central Excise, Chennai North - 2022-TIOL-339-CESTAT-MAD to argue that penalty requires to be waived. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed accordingly. 5. Ld. A.R. Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue is whether the appellant is eligible for credit on 'Outdoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no positive evidence adduced by the department that the appellant intentionally suppressed facts to evade payment of duty. I hold that penalty imposed requires to be set aside which I hereby do. 9. From the forgoing, the impugned order is modified to the extent of allowing credit for the period prior to 01.04.2011. The demand for the period after 01.04.2011 is upheld. The appellant is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
