9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides. 3. The appellants are manufacturers of PCC and RCC Poles and are also engaged in providing the services of Erection and Installation of such Poles at the site. They are collecting separate charges for having rendered such services. They had availed Service Tax credit on the Service Tax paid by them for rendering the output service such as erection of poles, installation and commissioning and on outward transportation. Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that the credit had been availed wrongly. Therefore, the said amount was demanded along with interest. There was a proposal for imposition of penalty also. The Adjudicating Authority, in his order, disallowed and demanded Service Tax credit of Rs 6,43,668/- along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant, appeared for hearing behalf of the appellants. He stated in the course of hearing that they are not challenging the point that they are ineligible for availing the credit. They had bona fide belief that the excess amount of Service Tax paid by them is legally available as credit. It was stated that the appellant had discharged service tax liability of Rs.58,822/- on Transport of Goods by Road by their own vehicles which was not liable to service tax at the relevant lime. Consequently, the excess Service Tax paid was availed as input service credit under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules. Similarly, they had taken input service credit of the excess Service Tax of Rs.2,26,938/- discharged as a sub-contractor to M/s. ABB Ltd. in their ER-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not warranted and the said penalty has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It was stated that the adjudication levies of Rs. 6,31,967/- towards Cenvat credit and Rs.11,701/- towards Education Cess and Rs.1,22,879/- as interest was paid vide TR-6 Challan dated 23.06.2007. In view of the above, it was argued that the penalties are not warranted. 5. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that the appellants had already paid the adjudication levies. The point made by the learned Consultant is that the appellants discharged Service Tax liability when it was not due from them. Therefore, they took credit of the amounts. But however, when the Revenue proceeded against them, they discharged the adjudication levies alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
