TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VT. LTD. VERSUS C.S.T., DELHI [ 2015 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] has held that On being realisation that they are not entitled to take the Cenvat credit if they are availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.1/2006-ST. Therefore, we hold that the reversal of Cenvat credit by the appellant amounts to non-availment of Cenvat credit. Thus, after appreciating the above judicial decisions, the facts being the same, the appeal is allowed. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri N.K. Bharath Kumar, Chartered Accountant For the Revenue : Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Additional Commissioner / A.R. ORDER The Service Tax Appeal No. S/ 41635/2014 has been filed by M/s. Dexter Travel Solutions Private Limited being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2014-MST dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai-I. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in rendering Rent a-Cab and Tour Operator Services and was duly registered with the Service Tax Department. On verification of ST-3 returns for 2010-2011, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but not on the appellants / court. iv. It was averred that once the credit availed wrongly is paid, it amounts to credit not taken. 3.2 In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. M/s. Windex Tours and Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. ii. BG Shirke Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III iii. Ajitnath Tours Travels Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad iv. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Khemka Travels v. Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2004-TIOL-57-HC-All-CX] vi. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodara Vs. Ram Krishna Travels Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL-1768-CESTAT-AHM] vii. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Amola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL- 1000-CESTAT-AHM] 4. The Ld. Consultant Shri N.K. Bharat Kumar, appearing for the Appellant placed reliance on following decisions as follows :- i. Travel Inn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [Manu/CE/0175/2015] ii. Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur [1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC)] iii. Khyati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only issue that has to be decided is the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of the Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 when CENVAT Credit was availed and utilised on input services but paid back along with interest on being pointed out. 11. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal which have held that when availed CENVAT Credit is reversed along with interest, the appellant is eligible for abatement and the claim of exemption under Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 not barred. In the case of Old World Hospitality Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 178 (Tri.-Del)] it has been held as follows:- 10 . Regarding the eligibility of the appellant for abated service tax liability for Mandap Keeper service in terms of the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., admittedly, the appellant availed Cenvat credit during the material time. However, we note that the appellants have reversed the whole of the Cenvat credit availed during the material time along with applicable interest. We also note that the Cenvat credit availed was recorded in the original order but at that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the inputs. Hence the benefit has to be given of the notification granting exemption/rate of duty on the final product since the reversal of the credit on the input was done at the Tribunal s stage. 19. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 1-10-2003 [2004 (163) E.L.T. 55 (Tri. - Del.)] has not referred to the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal and other binding decisions. In Chandrapur Magnet Wire Limited v. Collector, Central Excise, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 the Supreme Court has held :- If debit entry is permissible to be made, the credit entry for duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of final exempted product will stand deleted in the account of the assessee. In such a situation it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words the claim of exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. 22. Hence in our opinion the Tribunal was not justified in taking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
