9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the relevant records in support of their claim. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Tractor Parts falling under Chapter Heading 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that the credit of service tax paid on canteen, house-keeping and horticulture services received by the appellant during the relevant period was inadmissible under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, two show cause notices were issued to the appellant for recovery of the inadmissible credit on the said services along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant are entitled to Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering and the impugned order, remanding the matter, is bad in law to that extend. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department justifies the review order passed by the Principal Commissioner on the ground that during the relevant period, there was an extension notification dated 27.06.2020 issued by the Government of India vide which the period from 20.03.2020 upto 30.09.2020 was excluded from the computation of limitation. He further submits that if extension notification is considered, the review order is within time. 5.1 The learned Authorized Representative also submits that the issue of outdoor catering service has been settled by the Larger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the first ground taken by the appellant, that the review order is time barred, is not sustainable in view of the fact that during the relevant period, COVID-19 was there and limitation period was extended by the Government vide Notification No. G.S.R. 418(E) [F.No. CBEC-20/06/2020-GST] dated 27.06.2020; accordingly, this ground does not have force and is decided against the appellant. 7. As regards the other issue that the adjudicating authority in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is an impugned order herein, has confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.6,29,384/- and has ordered for rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
