M/s Virchow Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax -Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1413 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Appeal No. E/31133/2017 – A/30613/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
None for the Appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0038-17-18 dated 29.08.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Marine Insurance services which were used for export of finished goods exported and Air Travel Agent's services used for business travel of directors for sales promotion; reversal of CENVAT credit availed on the capital goods cleared without being used as such and whether invocation of extended perio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he matter was called out, submits that the lower authorities were in error in confirming the demands raised as Marine Insurance service is for the exports of the goods and cost of the export goods increasing by disallowing the credit on Marine Insurance service; Air Travel Agent's services were used for appellant movement of the directors and employees and used for business travel purpose and they have correctly reverse the CENVAT credit while discharging the duty on one of the machineries. He draws my attention to the various documents annexed to the memorandum of appeal. It is his further submission that the entire demand is hit by limitation as the show cause notice is issued on 17.05.2016 invoking the extended period, in spite of the fact that two audit parties have taken place in the appellant's premises and draws my attention to the audit report the copy annexed to the returns submitted today.
6. The matter was kept today for hearing arguments of Learned Departmental Representat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
od 26.01.2014 and 28.01.2014 and audit reports for January, 2014 to December, 2014 audited on 06.01.2015 – 21.01.2015. The said audit reports did not indicate any of the allegations made in the present show cause notice. It is also seen from the said show cause notice dated 17.05.2016, the basis for issuance of show cause notice is the audit report of the CAG. It is settled law in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. MTR Foods Ltd., [2012 (282) ELT 196 (Kar.)] wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has specifically held that once returns were regularly filed and no objections raised about same in first audit by Revenue Officers and during second audit, objections raised about same, and the said returns indicated availment of CENVAT Credit Rules, the audit party accepted the same, and it is not proper to invoke the extended period. The said ratio squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside only on the ground o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =