2017 (11) TMI 256 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – excess cenvat credit, over and above the prescribed limit of 20% utilized by the appellant – Held that: – a perusal of Rule 6(3)(c) indicates that there is no such restriction that 20% credit earned should be utilized within a particular period – the decision in the case of M/s. C.L. Educate Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2015 (10) TMI 2544 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], relied upon, where it was held that There are no specific restrictions or prohibitions contained in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, providing for reversal of cenvat credit on monthly/periodic basis – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/Misc./40999/2017 and ST/54/2008 – Final Order No.42514 / 2017 – Dated:- 1-11-2017 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri P. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are engaged
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
authority vide the impugned order confirmed recovery of the alleged excess utilization of credit amounting to ₹ 58,06,851/- along with interest liability thereof. Aggrieved the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld.counsel Shri P. Ravindran submits that it is not the case that they had utilized more than 20% of the credit eligible to them for the period September 2004 to March 2005. However, during such period, the tax liability on the taxable output services were discharged by them through cash and the eligible 20% credit amount was not utilized that period. Such quantum of earned credit not utilized earlier was subsequently utilized by them for discharge of tax liability for the months of April and May 2005. Ld. counsel places reliance on the ratio of the following case laws:- (a) Vijayanand Roadlines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum – 2007 (7) STR 219 (b) Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
osed under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules as was in force during the material time. However, a perusal of Rule 6(3)(c) indicates that there is no such restriction that 20% credit earned should be utilized within a particular period. This being so, we do not find any sustenance in the decision of the adjudicating authority. We also find that the case laws cited by the ld. counsel fully covers the dispute in favour of the appellant. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and will have to be set aside which we hereby do. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. 5. Revenue has filed the above miscellaneous application for change of cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai to The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate consequent upon the introduction of GST and the resultant change in the jurisdiction. We allow the miscellaneous application fo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
