TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CESTAT MUMBAI] , where it was held that the respondent has rightly paid the service tax from a common pool of Cenvat credit. Thus, the issue is no more res-integra as it has been decided that utilisation of credit for payment of service tax is permissible. Therefore, the demand in the present case cannot be sustained - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Tapas Ruparelia, Chartered Accountantfor the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is eligible to utilize Cenvat credit of input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dated 15.07.2015 upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal. 3. Shri Tapas Ruparelia, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submits that there is no bar for utilisation of credit related to manufacturing activity for payment of service tax when the assessee is involved in both the activities i.e. manufacturing as well as provisioning of service. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nashik vs. Graphite India Limited 2017 (3) GSTL 505 (Tri. Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original. Therefore Revenue is before me. 2. Shri A.B. Kulgod, ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the respondent was required to maintain separate Cenvat account for manufacturing activity and their service activity for the reason that there are separate input and services for manufacturing and services. Cenvat credit related to manufacturing cannot be utilised for providing the payment of service tax in respect of output service. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Mansi Patil, ld. counsel for the respondent submits that the cross utilisation of Cenvat credit between the manufacturing and services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable service shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the Cenvat credit) of (i) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act; (ii) the duty of excise specified in the Second Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act; (iii) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978); (iv) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957); (v) the National Calamity Contingent duty leviable under section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 (14 of 2001) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit is allowed to be utilised either for payment of excise duty or for payment of service tax. In the said provisions, there is no explicit condition that for manufacture and services separate account has to be maintained. Therefore in the absence of any such restriction or prohibition, the assessee is free to maintain a consolidated Cenvat account and discharge the excise duty as well as the service tax liability from such common pool. The judgments cited by the ld. counsel for the respondent directly support their case. The Board in the letter F. No. 381/23/2010/862, dated 30-3-2010 examined the matter which is reproduced below :- F. No. 381/23/2010/862 Dated : 30-3-2010 Subject : Cross utilization of credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax Commissionerate), then while undertaking Service Tax audit, the officer should verify the Excise returns also, for confirming correctness of credit. ( Gautam Ray ) Director General 6. From the above Board s letter also it is clear that the utilisation of Cenvat credit from common pool for payment of excise duty and/or service tax is permissible. As per my above discussion and the issue being non res integra in the light of the above judgments as well as per the Board s above referred letter, the respondent has rightly paid the service tax from a common pool of Cenvat credit. The impugned order is correct and legal which does not require any interference. I therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
