2018 (8) TMI 1399 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Reversal of CENVAT Credit – appellant provided both taxable as well as exempted service – the appellant had reversed the CENVAT Credit availed by it in respect of the exempted service provided to PWD, by availing the exemption benefit under Notification dated 20.06.2012 and also paid the interest at the appropriate rate.
–
Held that:- TThe issue arising out of present dispute is no more res integra in view of decision in the case of Ahmednagar Zilla Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2018 (4) TMI 1330 – CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that since the appellants have reversed the CENVAT credit and also paid interest on such delayed reversal of credit, demand cannot be confirmed on the appellants.
–
Demand set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/86616/2018 – A/87039/2018 – Dated:- 2-8-2018 – Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Membe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er Notification dated 20.06.2012 and also paid the interest at the appropriate rate. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated against the appellant vide order dated 29.01.2016, wherein the proposals made in the show-cause notice were dropped. Being aggrieved with the said adjudication order, Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 31.01.2018 in favour of Revenue. Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the CENVAT Credit demand along with interest and appropriated the amount already reversed by the appellant towards such confirmed demand. The impugned order also imposed penalty on the appellant. 3. The short question involved in the appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is whether, upon reversal of CENVAT Credit on the exempted service along with interest, can the department proceed further for recovery of amount as contemplated under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and impo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the impugned orders, there were no outstanding liability recoverable from the appellants, the demand of amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the rules cannot be sustained. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad [2018-TIOL-795-CESTAT-MUM], by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-MUM] has held that the option available to the assessee to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit, once exercised by the assessee, the demand cannot be confirmed for recovery of the value of the exempted service provided by the assessee. Thus, we are of the considered view that since the appellants have reversed the CENVAT credit and also paid interest on such delayed reversal of credit, demand cannot be confirmed on the appellants." 4. In view of the above settled position of law, the impu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =