9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009 certified on 6.7.2009 in Appeal No. E/2020/2007) Shri Bipin Garg, Adv. for Appellants Shri S. Gautam, DR for Respondent Per P.K. Das: The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Power Distribution Transformers, HV/LV Coils classified under Heading 8504 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been alleged in the show cause notice that the amount of Rs. 2,25,520/- lying as on 10.09.2004 was wrongly utilised for payment of central excise duty instead of payment of service tax as provided under Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules and, therefore, utilisation of credit under Rule 4 is irregular. He further submits that they have not disclosed these facts to the Revenue and, therefore, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the show cause notice that the amount of Rs. 2,25,520/- was lying unutilised in CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2004, or by a provider of output service under the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, as they existed prior to the 10th day of September, 2004, and remaining unutilised on that day shall be allowed as Cenvat Credit to such manufacturer or provider of output service under these rules, and be allowed to be utilised in accordance with these rules. Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held. As the denial of credit of Rs. 2,25,520/- is set aside and the issue involved is interpretation of provisions of law, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, penalties are set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion, the denial of credit of Rs. 2,25,520/- and penalties are set aside and the denial of credit of Rs. 20,501/- is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
