TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 which excluded services in the nature of outdoor catering services. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX [ 2021 (12) TMI 420 - SC ORDER] had held that credit is not eligible after 01.04.2011. From the foregoing, it is held that appellant is not eligible for credit after 01.04.2011. Further, for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Jaishankar, Advocate For the Appellant 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d prior to 01.04.2011 the appellant would be eligible for credit as the amendment excluding Outdoor Catering 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht out by the department that there is suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. He relied upon 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avelled upto the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court has held that after 01.04.2011 the credit is not eligible. Further, 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 allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
