TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case shall not stand judicial scrutiny. In an identical case, the Hon ble Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS PUNJAB STEELS [ 2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that in absence of any statutory provisions, creating the embargo for reversal of Cenvat credit oninput services, the department cannot insist for reversal of such credit from the assesse. This court finds that the view as expressed by the Tribunal is strictly in conformity with the Rules. Rule 2(k) of the Rules defines input , whereas Rule 2(l) defines input service , meaning thereby both the terms have been defined independently. Rule 3 defines the term Cenvat credit , whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : S. K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Service Tax VII, Mumbai, wherein the amount of Rs.75,01,424/- was confirmed along with interest and also penalties were imposed under Section 78 under Rule 15 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Besides, the impugned order has also imposed penalty under Section 77 ibid on the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein are engaged in packing and repacking of cement in retail packs. As per the provisions of Section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act read with T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,Chandigarh-I vs. Punjab Steels reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 521 (P H). Further, learned Advocate has also placed reliance on the instructions dated 07.12.2015 issued by the CBEC, clarifying the position that in case of the input service the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 ibid shall not be applicable. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 6. Rule 3 ibid is the enabling provision, which entitles a manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit of various duties and taxes paid on the inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities with the following observations and relying upon its earlier order passed in Chitrakoot Steel Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2008 (10) S.T.R. 118(Tri- Chennai)] I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The appellant had received certain inputs and for transporting those inputs to the factory, had availed GTA service in respect of which service tax paid was Rs.2,75,684/- and the credit of this service tax on GTA service had also been taken. Subsequently, when the appellant removed those inputs as such, he reversed only the credit of excise duty paid on inputs The Department's contention is that on the removal of the goods as such, in addition to the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice, whereas Rule 5, on which reliance is sought to be placed by the Revenue, specifically talks about the Cenvat credit on any input or input Service used in the manufacture of final product. This rule pertains to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy, even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot be levied merely by inference or presumption. It is not possible to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said discussion, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present set of appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 12. Further, we also find that the CBEC vide instruction dated 07.12.2015 in order to bring uniformity in the practice of assessment has issued the minutes of the Tariff conference conveying the said statutory provision in line with the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of Punjab Steels (supra). 13. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands on the appellant holding that the they are required to reverse to Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services for the purpose of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
